What temperature is too hot for conventional oil?

[Shannow]

LOL, we dubunked the "faster heat exchange" a few weeks ago...it's thermal carrying capacity, and the difference is tiny.

As I sad, the 15W40s have a significant HTHS advantage when it comes to protection.

But they burn fuel in doing so.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
LOL, we dubunked the "faster heat exchange" a few weeks ago...it's thermal carrying capacity, and the difference is tiny.

As I sad, the 15W40s have a significant HTHS advantage when it comes to protection.

But they burn fuel in doing so.

Tiny difference? OK. One thing about Redline oils is that they run 15-20f cooler.But since you debunked it, I guess it is not happening.
Also, that class action suit against VW when they used conventional oil in 1.8T engines (and "thin" 5W30 synthetic oils) also never happened.

 

[bdcardinal]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
Ford doesn't spec a 15w-40 simply for economy reasons...
They also do not specify 15W-40 for any of the conditions I experienced recently. In fact, for anything other than normal use they state 5W-40. Why is that if 15W-40 or 10W-30 is more appropriate?


I wonder if they specify the 5W40 purely because they already had one they sold? It came out around the 2008-2009 range IIRC and was never a huge seller due to the fairly high cost. Ford tells us to tell people that even with using a full synthetic oil to not increase their interval at all and to purely use it based on increased mileage.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Tiny difference?


Mineral oil has a specific heat of 0.52Cal/g/degreeC, and a density of say 0.82...426 Cal per litre, per degree C in temperature change.

PAO is 0.55 (yes, 6% more heat per degree celsius per gramme), but at a density of 0.77, 422 Cal per liter, per degree C.

Like I said, no difference...it's science.

POE is denser, so can carry more calories per litre around (510ish Cal per degree rise per litre), but you were talking primarily PAO...no diffference in the most common of synthetics...and GrIII Nil too.

Originally Posted By: edyvw
OK. One thing about Redline oils is that they run 15-20f cooler.But since you debunked it, I guess it is not happening.


Sounds neat, got the papers to support it ?

If it were all ester, I can understand that it would increase in temperature less across the bearing (the heat rise in bearings and piston skirts is due to internal friction (shear) in the oil)...thus a pure Ester (which it isn't), I could understand 5-10F less temperature rise across mains, big ends, and skirts...

but it's not due to it's superior heat transfer (aka water wetter like properties).

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Also, that class action suit against VW when they used conventional oil in 1.8T engines (and "thin" 5W30 synthetic oils) also never happened.


Is that like saying .... look over there, a rabbit ?

I'm not sure the relevance of VWs issues, but would appreciate you telling me what it was...

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Tiny difference?


Mineral oil has a specific heat of 0.52Cal/g/degreeC, and a density of say 0.82...426 Cal per litre, per degree C in temperature change.

PAO is 0.55 (yes, 6% more heat per degree celsius per gramme), but at a density of 0.77, 422 Cal per liter, per degree C.

Like I said, no difference...it's science.

POE is denser, so can carry more calories per litre around (510ish Cal per degree rise per litre), but you were talking primarily PAO...no diffference in the most common of synthetics...and GrIII Nil too.

Originally Posted By: edyvw
OK. One thing about Redline oils is that they run 15-20f cooler.But since you debunked it, I guess it is not happening.


Sounds neat, got the papers to support it ?

If it were all ester, I can understand that it would increase in temperature less across the bearing (the heat rise in bearings and piston skirts is due to internal friction (shear) in the oil)...thus a pure Ester (which it isn't), I could understand 5-10F less temperature rise across mains, big ends, and skirts...

but it's not due to it's superior heat transfer (aka water wetter like properties).

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Also, that class action suit against VW when they used conventional oil in 1.8T engines (and "thin" 5W30 synthetic oils) also never happened.


Is that like saying .... look over there, a rabbit ?

I'm not sure the relevance of VWs issues, but would appreciate you telling me what it was...

There are numerous threads about Redline and oil temperatures across internet, especially BMW.
VW? VW when they introduced Passat 1.8T to the U.S. market, unlike in Europe, were quite liberal as what oil could be used. They were recommending grade, but not specifying anything else. Reason for that was that VW tried to lower the cost of OCI for consumers in order to compete with Honda, Toyota etc. In Europe, they already had VW 502.00 spec., a fully synthetic oil requirement. Since no particular specification was recommended etc. drivers were using mostly conventional oil or at best synthetic oils such as M1 5W30 or similar, which also created problems.
Consequences? Failed turbos, sludge, failed oil pumps etc. After VW/Audi technical bulletin in 2001, it was clearly recommended to use only VW 502.00 spec. which only synthetic oils can meet.
Though VW increased oil capacity also introducing twice as large oil filter, main cause was conventional and even regular synthetic oil. I personally saw 1.8T in Audi with 80K that was running on M1 5W30 that seized due to sludge. These engines using VW 502.00 spec. could last hundreds of thousands of miles (actually know person with 378K on 2004 1.8T Passat).
So, I get your point, but there are too many advantages to synthetic oil, especially in environments like that. Not to mention that price difference is really ridiculously low considering price of equipment.

 

[Jetronic]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


Mineral oil has a specific heat of 0.52Cal/g/degreeC, and a density of say 0.82...426 Cal per litre, per degree C in temperature change.

PAO is 0.55 (yes, 6% more heat per degree celsius per gramme), but at a density of 0.77, 422 Cal per liter, per degree C.

Like I said, no difference...it's science.

POE is denser, so can carry more calories per litre around (510ish Cal per degree rise per litre), but you were talking primarily PAO...no diffference in the most common of synthetics...and GrIII Nil too.

Originally Posted By: edyvw
OK. One thing about Redline oils is that they run 15-20f cooler.But since you debunked it, I guess it is not happening.


Sounds neat, got the papers to support it ?

If it were all ester, I can understand that it would increase in temperature less across the bearing (the heat rise in bearings and piston skirts is due to internal friction (shear) in the oil)...thus a pure Ester (which it isn't), I could understand 5-10F less temperature rise across mains, big ends, and skirts...

but it's not due to it's superior heat transfer (aka water wetter like properties).



The density of Redline oils is around 0.89, it needs a LOT of POE esp if the balance is PAO at 0.77 to get there as esters are in the 0.91-1.00 range typically. Found the SG on the MSDS for the motor oils. The same MSDS also says 25-60% PAO but to hide formulations it could be anywhere inside or even outside that range.

How much less heat generation is there if you push the mixed lubrication line on the stribeck curve left a bit, and the boundary lubrication line down? If the polarity of the esters is high enough this does happen, but I have no idea what the difference in heat generation is going from µ 0.3 to µ0.25 (averaged over time) in the boundary mixed lubrication regime. Would be nice to find out... thinking piston rings and valvetrain mostly here...

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Also, that class action suit against VW when they used conventional oil in 1.8T engines (and "thin" 5W30 synthetic oils) also never happened.

I'm not sure that's so much a heat issue, but using an oil with an unsuitable HTHS and for way longer than one should.

 

[Shannow]

Jetronic,
you nailed it...

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Also, that class action suit against VW when they used conventional oil in 1.8T engines (and "thin" 5W30 synthetic oils) also never happened.

I'm not sure that's so much a heat issue, but using an oil with an unsuitable HTHS and for way longer than one should.

Actually VW's with that engine were on 5K regiment from the beginning. I think it is combination of factors, but one case I am personally familiar, Audi 1.8T that used M1 5W30 syn. had regular 5K changes. Still seized at 80K.
I know HTHS of M1 5W30 is lower, but it is still pretty dramatic to develop such problem so early. It is always combination of factors. Same like planes do not crash just because of single problem. So if we are talking about synthetic vs. conventional we have to take all factor in, not one just one or two.

 

[mbacfp]

Great stuff. If one is not planning on extending OCIs, doesn't live in a harshly cold environment, and doesnt care about potential fuel savings...why would one run Delvac 5w40 vs Kendall 15w40 (which looks like awesome stuff 2015_PSD)? I would be looking for best overall engine protection...perhaps won't matter if following manufacturers OCIs? Thanks.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Actually VW's with that engine were on 5K regiment from the beginning. I think it is combination of factors, but one case I am personally familiar, Audi 1.8T that used M1 5W30 syn. had regular 5K changes. Still seized at 80K.

I'm surprised the OCI was that short. My Audi, before the specified lubes, had a 12,500 km severe service interval with API oil. Now, if one used the preferred viscosity, a 15w-40, one would probably get a stout HDEO here, which wouldn't be a problem. Outside of that, one could get something that could cause problems over a long time.

Seizing at 80,000 miles is serious.

I wonder how things would have faired with a higher HTHS, not that such a thing would have made the engines perfect, either.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Actually VW's with that engine were on 5K regiment from the beginning. I think it is combination of factors, but one case I am personally familiar, Audi 1.8T that used M1 5W30 syn. had regular 5K changes. Still seized at 80K.

What year and what was the spec'd oil?

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: edyvw
Actually VW's with that engine were on 5K regiment from the beginning. I think it is combination of factors, but one case I am personally familiar, Audi 1.8T that used M1 5W30 syn. had regular 5K changes. Still seized at 80K.

What year and what was the spec'd oil?

You did not fallow me. Those engines are before VW issued technical bulletin specifying VW 502.00. There was no clear requirement except API requirement for that time (SJ/SL I think). VW 502.00 came after those issues, although in Europe VW from the get go, when they introduced 1.8T, required 5W40 ACEA A3/B3 B4, VW 502.00 spec.

That engine can last forewer. But if you put wrong oil, conventional, semi-synthetic, low HTHS etc. it will cook it.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
They dont spec 15w-40 in the 6.7 period, manufacturers are moving away from 15w-40 for economy reasons.
How so? If you are a biofuel user, which in most metro areas of the US you have no choice, they "specify" to use either 5W-40 or 15W-40 (see #2 below the graph). Here from the owner's manual diesel supplement:

Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
Your original question was" what temp is too hot for conventional", you haven't even come within 150f of the flash point.
I would contend that long before reaching the flashpoint (which the lowest temperature at which a liquid will generate sufficient vapor to flash (ignite) when exposed to a source of ignition, or fire.) the oil will be cooked, coked, done. How would the oil perform at 260F for sustained operation? Still viable? My concern is that at a sustained temperature of 240°F and above the oil will begin to breakdown.

I just completed my 3,900 mile trip (which was 100°F-117°F for at least 1,500 miles) and the highest oil temperature I saw (unloaded) was 249°F. Would that be the maximum I would see since you state the oil cooler would be fully open at 245°F? Without towing under the same conditions I would cannot say, but I would not be using a conventional oil at that point. Below is Ford's definition of severe service. I meet one of those requirements daily (use of biofuels--although I do not see that as "true" severe service) but since operation above 100°F is another, I for one am quite satisfied that I had a synthetic 5W-40 in the sump.

Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
The CJ-4 spec is not an easy spec to meet and with CK-4 rolling out this fall it will be even tougher to comply with.
Curiously enough, it seems that oxidation from high heat is one of the issues addressed with CK-4--which sounds like would be the oil for the conditions in which I just operated. I also wonder if CK-4 will need to be a SynBlend in order to pass the tests?

Here from Chevron (I only added the oxidation part):

Originally Posted By: Chevron
Traits of Superior Performance

The common thread between FA-4 and CK-4 oils is that both will deliver superior performance over the current CJ-4 category, especially when it comes to new challenges for equipment users. When considering your PC-11 oil purchases, three of the most important traits to look for are:

Oxidation stability
Wear protection
Piston deposits

Oxidation Stability

Performance tests for the new category of oils reflect the industry’s focus on meeting the new challenges users face. Along with seven stringent tests used for current oils, the new oils also must pass two additional, very demanding tests. In particular, the aggressive Volvo T-13 test addresses oxidation, or oil’s propensity to break down at high operating temperatures. Oxidation is especially harmful to engines because it causes oil to thicken and form deposits, and it fosters corrosion. Oxidation stability in the new PC-11 oils is intended to address those issues. It is also a key factor allowing OEMs to consider extending recommended oil drain intervals. In fact, Chevron recently added an oxidation indicator to its recommendations for used oil analysis. Finding an oil that can maximize protection against oxidation will be crucial.


At any rate, RoadRunner, I appreciate your thoughts as well as everyone's answers and dialogue--good thoughts and points from all!

 

[roadrunner1]

An update, Ford has stated that 260F oil temp is the temp where the 6.7 should be kept under. At 245F your truck is operating as it should.

Another update, PC-11 will NOT be backwards compatible to the current spec (CJ-4), as CK-4 WILL be backwards compatible. It is going to be somewhat confusing with the roll-out this fall with two new HDEO specs.

As I stated before your truck is operating as it should, if you as the owner feels better running synthetic, then do it, but your truck could care less as any CJ-4 specced lube will suffice to the IOLM limit.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
An update, Ford has stated that 260F oil temp is the temp where the 6.7 should be kept under. At 245F your truck is operating as it should.

Another update, PC-11 will NOT be backwards compatible to the current spec (CJ-4), as CK-4 WILL be backwards compatible. It is going to be somewhat confusing with the roll-out this fall with two new HDEO specs.

As I stated before your truck is operating as it should, if you as the owner feels better running synthetic, then do it, but your truck could care less as any CJ-4 specced lube will suffice to the IOLM limit.
Do you have a source for the 260°F limit? Also, I saw 249°F unloaded, it is not a stretch in the slightest to think I would have hit 260°F towing. Lastly, why does Ford specify a synthetic (5W-40 is only available as a synthetic) to meet those conditions? To each his own, but IMHO, 260°F is not a condition under which I would use a conventional oil.

When I read the Chevron paper, I thought they were discussing CK-4 and not FA-4 oil. If they were, then my mistake--you are correct that only CK-4 will be backward compatible with CJ-4.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
When I read the Chevron paper, I thought they were discussing CK-4 and not FA-4 oil. If they were, then my mistake--you are correct that only CK-4 will be backward compatible with CJ-4.
I re-read it and they are discussing both oils so it seems the improvements noted in the paper are for both CK-4 and FA-4 oils (both of which are considered PC-11):

Originally Posted By: Chevron
As a reminder, the PC-11 oils are divided between two subcategories: Oils in the API CK-4 category are going to be backward compatible with previous generation oils and will meet the needs of new and older engines in both on- and off-highway applications. The API FA-4 oil category is designed for some heavy-duty on-highway diesel engines scheduled for introduction in late 2016 or early 2017. - See more at: http://www.chevronlubematters.com/2016/0...A.NEVStj6W.dpuf

 

[roadrunner1]

Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
An update, Ford has stated that 260F oil temp is the temp where the 6.7 should be kept under. At 245F your truck is operating as it should.

Another update, PC-11 will NOT be backwards compatible to the current spec (CJ-4), as CK-4 WILL be backwards compatible. It is going to be somewhat confusing with the roll-out this fall with two new HDEO specs.

As I stated before your truck is operating as it should, if you as the owner feels better running synthetic, then do it, but your truck could care less as any CJ-4 specced lube will suffice to the IOLM limit.
Do you have a source for the 260°F limit? Also, I saw 249°F unloaded, it is not a stretch in the slightest to think I would have hit 260°F towing. Lastly, why does Ford specify a synthetic (5W-40 is only available as a synthetic) to meet those conditions? To each his own, but IMHO, 260°F is not a condition under which I would use a conventional oil.

When I read the Chevron paper, I thought they were discussing CK-4 and not FA-4 oil. If they were, then my mistake--you are correct that only CK-4 will be backward compatible with CJ-4.


Powerstroke.Org, I tried to copy & paste the link (Ford Tech Paper) but the link had expired.

260F is no where near the limit of a CJ-4 oil, synthetic or mineral, that is the temp where Ford engineers have determined that the cooling system has reached its limit of heat rejection. As I stated previously 5w-40 is specced as a fuel savings during warm-up and it happens that the only way to attain a 5w-40 API rating is with a percentage of synthetic. I don't know what percentage it needs and am sure it varies from blender to blender.

With all of the heavy equipment operating with 15w-40 around the country, in less than optimal cooling conditions (radiators packed with dust, chaff,and whatever other debris) the oil choice isn't causing them to fail (15w-40) and the owners, for the most part, aren't running synthetic. My 6076 Deere I bought new in '92 and the owners manual suggested that 240F be the max oil temp, this was 1992! Engines of today run much hotter due to emissions equipment and better fuel efficiency. Along the way many things have had to be changed/updated including, coolant, oil, and lets not forget the addition of USLD. With the advent of USLD many additives in oil that were needed prior to USLD have been decreased (a good thing) because a high started TBN isn't needed with much cleaner fuel.

We are on the same page here, you are following your owners manual, which is a good thing. The point I am trying to get across is if you use a CJ-4 approved lube your truck is going to have a long life. It doesn't have to be a synthetic CJ-4 to have a long life. The most important thing to remember is that any spec is a baseline, many oils meet the spec, and some exceed it, it doesn't have to be a synthetic to exceed the spec although it can be. I have a folder full of UOA's from my equipment, at one time I thought I would give synthetic 5w-40 a try in two different engines. They were the absolute worst UOA's from either engine, by far, and the initial cost was twice of what I had been using. Viscosity dropped to 30 wt.,and wear metals were much higher. So from my point of view I was spending twice the money (7 gallon sump) and couldn't go as long as I had previously per UOA data. I just haven't seen the need for a synthetic in any of my large diesels or pick ups.

 

[Dak27]

I know we have run completely different vehicles in different applications, but I just ended my day in Yuma, Arizona. My truck's dash said the outside temperature reached a high of 115f driving in. I'm hauling a lighter load; 25K lbs on the bills of lading, so add in the weight of my truck and the trailer.

I'm running 15W40 conventional Delvac Super in a Detroit Series 60, and my oil temperature gauge never read above 200f.

Once again, we have completely different vehicles, motors, sump capacities, and applications, but I have zero concerns about a CJ4 conventional 15W40's performance in very hot ambient temperatures. I do however question it's ability to protect my motor during a cold startup in the dead of Winter in the Rockies, Upper Midwest, Northeast, so I switch over to semi-synthetic 10W30 before the coldest Winter months kick in. But many, many big Fleets run conventional 15W40 year round, and million mile motors are very common.

I have a really good friend who runs a repair shop in Utah that works on Ford, Dodge, and GM Diesel trucks/engines. His personal vehicle is a 7.3 Ford Turbo Diesel, he's really knowledgeable on these trucks and motors, if you'd like, I'll ask him about your initial post.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Dak27
I know we have run completely different vehicles in different applications, but I just ended my day in Yuma, Arizona. My truck's dash said the outside temperature reached a high of 115f driving in. I'm hauling a lighter load; 25K lbs on the bills of lading, so add in the weight of my truck and the trailer.

I'm running 15W40 conventional Delvac Super in a Detroit Series 60, and my oil temperature gauge never read above 200f.

Once again, we have completely different vehicles, motors, sump capacities, and applications, but I have zero concerns about a CJ4 conventional 15W40's performance in very hot ambient temperatures. I do however question it's ability to protect my motor during a cold startup in the dead of Winter in the Rockies, Upper Midwest, Northeast, so I switch over to semi-synthetic 10W30 before the coldest Winter months kick in. But many, many big Fleets run conventional 15W40 year round, and million mile motors are very common.

I have a really good friend who runs a repair shop in Utah that works on Ford, Dodge, and GM Diesel trucks/engines. His personal vehicle is a 7.3 Ford Turbo Diesel, he's really knowledgeable on these trucks and motors, if you'd like, I'll ask him about your initial post.
Please do; more information is always a good thing, he just has to remember the 6.7L platform has full emissions controls in place. I am certain the differences in the capacities and systems between an OTR vehicle and mine account for the differences in oil temperature.