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

[OVERKILL]

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.

The Corolla is the exception, not the rule, and as Zee noted, there would have been design accommodations made (like wider bearings) to facilitate the use of 0W-20. Though it's telling that it doesn't spec 0W-16 or 0W-8 like most other things Toyota at this point.

- GM has historically recommended M1 15W-50 in the Corvette if going to the race track, but 5W-30 for daily driving.
- Ford spec'd 5W-20 for the "regular" version of the Mustang GT, but 5W-50 for the same car, with the same engine, in "Track Pack" trim which had different thermal programming.
- The FCA SRT vehicles all spec 0W-40, while the non-SRT HEMI's all spec'd 5W-20 or 0W-20.

High performance track-oriented vehicles with limited production volume can be spec'd a greater safety margin with little penalty to the parent company's CAFE fees. Depending on power density, sump volume, oil cooling capacity and ultimately lubricant temperature measured during testing, the grade with sufficient margin is determined for these applications. When the manufacturer is only moving a few thousand, this really has little impact on CAFE penalties, and consumers are generally paying a premium for these vehicles anyway.

Daily driver oriented vehicles with high production volume are more likely to be spec'd less margin in order to increase CAFE and reduce the penalties/fees as much as possible. When you are moving hundreds of thousands of a powertrain, every little bit of fuel economy counts. This reduced margin is balanced by the use of coolant/oil heat exchanges (which also bring the oil up to temperature more quickly, improving fuel economy) and software-driven safety mechanisms that can reduce output in the event the oil gets above safe operating temperature.

There's probably no better example of this than the aforementioned Ford Mustang situation. The "Track Pack" version, that spec'd 5W-50, had a big oil cooler and could be readily tracked with no loss of performance. The "regular" version, which spec'd 5W-20, with the SAME engine, would readily go into limp mode (thermal castration) if pushed for too long, due to the oil temperature getting too high to provide adequate viscosity and lubrication. This highlights, quite handily, the compromise made by going with the lighter oil, and the mechanism employed to ensure that this was safe. This is because the vast majority of Mustang GT's sold would not be of the "Track Pack" variant and very few of them would ever see a racetrack, so it was a reasonable compromise.

 

[Aston4]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am far, far older than you. I'm discussing the time period '92-'11. That was the immortal engine time frame, excluding mostly detroit 4 cylinders that were designed by accountants. Honda engines started disintegrating around 2009ish, before DI. 20 is the water threshold, 20 or below is drinkable. You can call the Zinc whatever acronym you want, but ZDDP decreases friction/wear, and removing it increases friction/wear (whoever wants to say oh that's just one component of a package of various levels, etc, please stop. The "low friction ring" people need to step outside the box too. Hint: low friction rings do not cause more friction, score the bores, and carborize themselves). This is kindergarden stuff, but if you need a cite, there is one or more in this thread above. You seem unable to step outside the box and look at the big picture. The big picture is that the *exact same engines* that used to last forever, now are starting to eat oil and cam bearings and lifters and wear the coatings off piston skirts and carbonize the oil rings and score bores. All of these problems are caused by friction. If you don't think friction is reduced by oil, go ahead, continue to use water instead. It's your stuff, do whatever you like. When your engine poops you can replace it with a nice, always connected, electric car. So many touch screens and blinking lights! You'll love it and you'll save the environment too!!!! Everyone will love you when you get rid of that old engine that is destroying the earth and all your friends will love you even more, and the car will even watch you to make sure you're not too sleepy or stoned and the electric car will take care of you and give you hugs. It can even drive you by itself, to the approved facilities to hang out with your friends!

 

[Aston4]

can be spec'd a greater safety margin with little penalty to the parent company's CAFE fees.

Do you see? You do! That is exactly what I am trying to get across. It takes only a few seconds to trash an engine component when it is being run harder than usual, for whatever reason. Maybe chasing that Porsche for a few minutes at max throttle on the interstate, or just being in a thrashy mood for a few minutes. Less safety margin, means that, over any period of time, it is far more likely that that margin will be exceeded, if the margin is lower than it would have been with a stronger, though less fuel efficient oil.

The oil recommendations are to meet Government standards. The manufacture care about making money inside those standards, not whether the engine lasts 500,000 miles, instead of 150,000 miles.

The new oil specifications from the manufacturers are taking perfectly fine engines, that would have lasted indefinitely, and taking their life down to 150,000 and sometimes far less, especially for Ford and GM lately.

 

[OVERKILL]

I am far, far older than you. I'm discussing the time period '92-'11.

So late Windsor, early modular timeframe where power density was in the toilet, everything was still port injected...etc. I grew up around antique boats, so we are talking engines from the 20's, 30's 40's and 50's. SAE 20 was specified (as was 20W-20) for many applications depending on the anticipated ambient temperature, as was the use of kerosene to thin the oil if extreme cold was expected.

That was the immortal engine time frame, excluding mostly detroit 4 cylinders that were designed by accountants.

The LSx and HEMI (along with the Modular) all entered production during that timeframe and were some of the best engines we've ever had. That's not due to the oil, that's due to some rather major architectural improvements over the engines they replaced.

Honda engines started disintegrating around 2009ish, before DI. 20 is the water threshold, 20 or below is drinkable.

Honda had VCM issues before they had DI issues, as well as porous block problems, neither of those are oil related other than the oil really not being up to the task of handling the situation VCM created in the V6.

You can call the Zinc whatever acronym

It's not an acronym, it's an element, phosphorous, which is part of a compound, ZDDP. Zinc is another element in that compound.

you want, but ZDDP decreases friction/wear, and removing it increases friction/wear (whoever wants to say oh that's just one component of a package of various levels, etc, please stop.

ZDDP, and really phosphorous have NOT been removed. Phosphorous is RESTRICTED to 800ppm in grades xW-30 and below by the API for catalyst protection, it is NOT restricted in xW-40 grades and higher.

The "low friction ring" people need to step outside the box too. Hint: low friction rings do not cause more friction, score the bores, and carborize themselves). This is kindergarden stuff, but if you need a cite, there is one or more in this thread above. You seem unable to step outside the box and look at the big picture.

We've been using low tension rings since the 80's, the 302HO was one of the first engines to use them. I'm not a fan of the blame people place on those as the culprit, when it's typically engine design that's the issue.

The big picture is that the *exact same engines* that used to last forever, now are starting to eat oil and cam bearings and lifters and wear the coatings off piston skirts and carbonize the oil rings and score bores.

We aren't producing the "exact same engines" anymore. Everything is now GDI or TGDI for the most part. The 5.7L HEMI has ALWAYS spec'd a 20-grade in passenger applications and didn't start having lifter issues until variable camshaft timing was added and the lifters were revised. Furthermore, the issue impacted both the 6.4L and 6.2L engines as well, both of which spec a 40-grade.

GM's lifter failures are predominantly related to their AFM cylinder deactivation technology.

Toyota had oil rings plugging up, as did GM with the Saturn 1.9L back in the early 2000's. That's a design problem, typically due to inadequate return holes on the pistons.

All of these problems are caused by friction. If you don't think friction is reduced by oil, go ahead, continue to use water instead. It's your stuff, do whatever you like. When your engine poops you can replace it with a nice, always connected, electric car. So many touch screens and blinking lights! You'll love it and you'll save the environment too!!!! Everyone will love you when you get rid of that old engine that is destroying the earth and all your friends will love you even more, and the car will even watch you to make sure you're not too sleepy or stoned and the electric car will take care of you and give you hugs. It can even drive you by itself, to the approved facilities to hang out with your friends!

No, lifter QC problems are not caused by friction, inadequate oil return holes on the pistons are not caused by friction. These are design and quality issues. Why do you think the Modular lasted forever on "water" thin 5W-20? Because it was/is a low power density low stress engine with port injection, a roller valvetrain and an incredibly strong bottom-end. It was a well designed engine.

I'm not concerned about my engines "pooping", but I find it hilarious that you are making assumptions about what I run in my vehicles. Please continue.

 

[Aston4]

I've contributed all I can at this point. I hope I got my point across, that stupidly low viscosity oils, and formulating oils to meet government goals, rather than longevity goals, really needs to be examined, and reexamined, and examined again. I do not have the ability to go out and rigorously, scientifically, and reproducibly compare previous oil formulations with modern ones. But someone does. I'm sure there are a few megaview YT videos that will be made by various shills reading this thread. In the meantime, it is very obvious that something is wrong with engine longevity the past 10 years, compared to the previous 20, so I'll be running oil as close to older specifications as I can find, in all my ICE cars. This whole discussion, and this board, will be moot in a few years anyway when ICE is no more.

 

[OVERKILL]

Do you see? You do! That is exactly what I am trying to get across. It takes only a few seconds to trash an engine component when it is being run harder than usual, for whatever reason. Maybe chasing that Porsche for a few minutes at max throttle on the interstate, or just being in a thrashy mood for a few minutes. Less safety margin, means that, over any period of time, it is far more likely that that margin will be exceeded, if the margin is lower than it would have been with a stronger, though less fuel efficient oil.

As I illustrated with my Ford Track Pack example, generally, there's thermal programming put in place to limit that from happening. Not a pleasant experience, having your power output restricted, but that's the mechanism by which oil temperature is limited, as it's oil temperature that controls viscosity.

But, viscosity ≠ ZDDP; viscosity is not the sole driver of wear prevention, of which phosphorous, as part of the ZDDP compound, is the most popular. However, that effectiveness can be enhanced by other components, like moly for example, boron, titanium, tungsten...etc.

The oil recommendations are to meet Government standards. The manufacture care about making money inside those standards, not whether the engine lasts 500,000 miles, instead of 150,000 miles.

The pursuit of thinner and thinner oils (not the reduction in phosphorous, that's a separate discussion) is done in the name of improving CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). As I explained above, low production vehicles with a focus on performance inherently carry a low CAFE penalty, while high production volume vehicles will have a higher penalty, which drives the use of anti-friction coatings, thinner oils, lighter valve springs, low tension rings, shorter pistons, direct injection, turbocharged direct injection, variable valve timing, cylinder deactivation, tightening up the ring pack...etc. Some of these features have been less than well implemented however.

The new oil specifications from the manufacturers are taking perfectly fine engines, that would have lasted indefinitely, and taking their life down to 150,000 and sometimes far less, especially for Ford and GM lately.

Mandating the reduction of AW performance would increase friction and reduce fuel economy, quite the opposite of the goal. Design decisions on the other hand, like building a 1.5L TGDI engine that dumps obscene amounts of fuel into the oil as a byproduct of trying to get the best possible fuel economy, can potentially lead to the situation you are referencing.

You should really read through some of the testing protocols and observe their limits on things like wear, deposit formation...etc. These things have all gotten progressively more strict over time, not more lax.

 

[Aston4]

ZDDP, and really phosphorous have NOT been removed. Phosphorous is RESTRICTED to 800ppm in grades xW-30 and below by the API for catalyst protection, it is NOT restricted in xW-40 grades and higher.

I don't even know why I'm replying. Sigh. I'm shutting off all internet for good soon. Yes, I get it. I have a hard chem/physics background, in the field for decades. That does not matter at all. What the stuff is does not matter. At all. Let me try one more time: I don't give a flying bird what the compound is, I don't care what it's structure is, I don't care ANYTHING AT ALL about it. The point is that it is supposed to reduce wear, has been in fact shown to reduce wear, has been shown that removal increases wear. Yet it is being removed FOR GOVERNMENT EMISSION PURPOSES. It is being removed for political purpose. It is not being removed to help the engine, it is being removed to further a political decision. That political decision is that emissions are bad and converters should last longer than engines. Just like in the 70's it was a political decision to make engines that used to make 400 horsepower, make 150 instead by the addition of emission control. Like the decision to pull the sperm oil out of transmission fluid so auto trannys would disintegrate at 30,000 miles. They didn't care about the transmissions, they cared about the whales. Save the Whales. It is a political level of Zinc, not a scientific level of Zinc. I applaud you for running less Zinc and saving your converter and saving the planet and the whales. Screw your engine, whales are so much more important.

 

[ekpolk]

I've contributed all I can at this point. I hope I got my point across, that stupidly low viscosity oils, and formulating oils to meet government goals, rather than longevity goals, really needs to be examined, and reexamined, and examined again. I do not have the ability to go out and rigorously, scientifically, and reproducibly compare previous oil formulations with modern ones. But someone does. I'm sure there are a few megaview YT videos that will be made by various shills reading this thread. In the meantime, it is very obvious that something is wrong with engine longevity the past 10 years, compared to the previous 20, so I'll be running oil as close to older specifications as I can find, in all my ICE cars. This whole discussion, and this board, will be moot in a few years anyway when ICE is no more.

Right here in this sub-forum, there’s a mega-thread that started twenty years ago, about cars lasting 150k miles or more. As of today, it is up to 63 pages. Right there on page 62 is the most recent example (of many) which clearly disproves your sweeping, incorrect conclusions. It’s a 2002 Honda Accord, with almost a QUARTER MILLION MILES, which was serviced with the specified 5w-20 its whole life, and when traded, still used no oil between changes.

“Stupidly low viscosity”? Seems to have worked pretty well for this Accord, and the many other examples in that one thread, in which owners trusted what their manufacturers recommended, instead of the hysterics of the legions of internet “experts.” Perhaps you should go “peruse” that thread for a bit. Of course, you’re entitled to your OPINION about what’s too thick or thin, but don’t expect everyone else to elevate your OPINION above the vast quantities of evidence to the contrary, or the engineering that went into the vehicles in question.

 

[OVERKILL]

I don't even know why I'm replying. Sigh. I'm shutting off all internet for good soon. Yes, I get it. I have a hard chem/physics background, in the field for decades. That does not matter at all. What the stuff is does not matter. At all. Let me try one more time: I don't give a flying bird what the compound is, I don't care what it's structure is, I don't care ANYTHING AT ALL about it. The point is that it is supposed to reduce wear, has been in fact shown to reduce wear, has been shown that removal increases wear. Yet it is being removed FOR GOVERNMENT EMISSION PURPOSES. It is being removed for political purpose. It is not being removed to help the engine, it is being removed to further a political decision. That political decision is that emissions are bad and converters should last longer than engines. Just like in the 70's it was a political decision to make engines that used to make 400 horsepower, make 150 instead by the addition of emission control. Like the decision to pull the sperm oil out of transmission fluid so auto trannys would disintegrate at 30,000 miles. They didn't care about the transmissions, they cared about the whales. Save the Whales. It is a political level of Zinc, not a scientific level of Zinc. I applaud you for running less Zinc and saving your converter and saving the planet and the whales. Screw your engine, whales are so much more important.

Again, it's not Zinc, nobody cares about Zinc, there is no restriction on Zinc, the restriction is on phosphorous, it is limited to 800ppm in oils xW-30 and below if they want to carry API SN or newer (see attached table).

Oils that are xW-40 and higher, so your 0W-40, 5W-40...etc are NOT impacted by this restriction.

Again, your assumption about what I'm actually using is amusing, why don't you ask rather than going off half-cocked?

 

[ekpolk]

I don't even know why I'm replying. Sigh. I'm shutting off all internet for good soon. Yes, I get it. I have a hard chem/physics background, in the field for decades. That does not matter at all. What the stuff is does not matter. At all. Let me try one more time: I don't give a flying bird what the compound is, I don't care what it's structure is, I don't care ANYTHING AT ALL about it. The point is that it is supposed to reduce wear, has been in fact shown to reduce wear, has been shown that removal increases wear. Yet it is being removed FOR GOVERNMENT EMISSION PURPOSES. It is being removed for political purpose. It is not being removed to help the engine, it is being removed to further a political decision. That political decision is that emissions are bad and converters should last longer than engines. Just like in the 70's it was a political decision to make engines that used to make 400 horsepower, make 150 instead by the addition of emission control. Like the decision to pull the sperm oil out of transmission fluid so auto trannys would disintegrate at 30,000 miles. They didn't care about the transmissions, they cared about the whales. Save the Whales. It is a political level of Zinc, not a scientific level of Zinc. I applaud you for running less Zinc and saving your converter and saving the planet and the whales. Screw your engine, whales are so much more important.

Wait a minute — you have a “hard chem/physics” background, but spelled zinc as “zinK”??? And didn’t recognize what the P in ZDDP stands for, nor apparently what the phosphorous in the compound does? Really??? Something doesn’t smell right here, and it’s not coming from an exhaust pipe. . . At least not a metal one.

 

[Aston4]

How many of you think the government reformulations of gasoline (to save the environment) are bad for components/engines, but think government reformulation of motor oil (to save the environment) is perfectly fine?

 

[Aston4]

At this moment at least two or three YT shill firms reading this thread are hurridly sketching out new videos that will have clickbait titles like "Are modern oils destroying your engine?" and "Is your engine oil too thin?" 1.5 million views each, somehow instantly bumped to the top by Google's algo.

They'll be out in about 3 weeks. lol

Then all the plebs are going to be scarfing every last remaining bottle thick dino oil out of walmart. lol lol lol

Old stock GTX on eBay $40/quart.

 

[ekpolk]

At this moment at least two or three YT shill firms reading this thread are hurridly sketching out new videos that will have clickbait titles like "Are modern oils destroying your engine?" and "Is your engine oil too thin?" 1.5 million views each, somehow instantly bumped to the top by Google's algo.

They'll be out in about 3 weeks. lol

Then all the plebs are going to be scarfing every last remaining bottle thick dino oil out of walmart. lol lol lol

Old stock GTX on eBay $40/quart.

Hmmm, still no reply on the substance...

 

[Aston4]

Doesn’t matter what I reply. What matters is the conclusion the various shills will carefully come to in YouTube videos over the next few months. Those conclusions will be parroted by midwit motorheads all across America, and become gospel, even here. This process describes the entirety of the net now, and why I’m more or less off of it completely.

I just came back here to find a high ZinK, high viscosity oil, was shocked to see there’s a 0w8 lol PT Barnum

 

[ekpolk]

Doesn’t matter what I reply. What matters is the conclusion the various shills will carefully come to in YouTube videos over the next few months. Those conclusions will be parroted by midwit motorheads all across America, and become gospel, even here. This process describes the entirety of the net now, and why I’m more or less off of it completely.

I just came back here to find a high ZinK, high viscosity oil, was shocked to see there’s a 0w8 lol PT Barnum

You’re still avoiding the facts, allowing your emotions to overrule facts. Unless you can come up with some REAL facts to support what you’re wanting everyone else to believe with you. It DOES matter what you reply. Come with some evidence, and you might actually convince some open minded members. Invoke PT Barnum in what’s supposed to be a serious disucussion, and you’ll get the consideration you deserve (not much). Have you reviewed the 150,000+ mile thread yet?

 

[ZeeOSix]

- Ford spec'd 5W-20 for the "regular" version of the Mustang GT, but 5W-50 for the same car, with the same engine, in "Track Pack" trim which had different thermal programming.

Also, after specifying 5W-20 in the Coyote for years, Ford made this move, and it wasn't to achieve CAFE credits ... more like to achieve better engine protection.

 

[kschachn]

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

For what?

 

[Glenda W.]

For what?

I was thinking this.

 

[ekpolk]

I was thinking this.

View attachment 249161

Lol, lot's to appreciate here. I especially enjoy the cat's reaction. And that someone thought to get the foil under the chin strap.

 

[JoeDirt41]

Wow. This thread went off the rails quickly. I have lots of tinfoil to makes hats out of if anyone needs any.