Which engine oil having high level of resist to fuel dilution

[Pablo]

There's no attitude, sir. I just could not care less if you believe it or not. That's all. /hug

Bout to go to Sam's Club and get groceries with my kids, drinking coffee. It's a good day!

No problem.

I’m very curious is all. Others can chime in as well. Does anyone have actual evidence any engines were designed to use 0W-8 specifically. With extraordinarily tight journal clearance and low temperature running?

 

[OVERKILL]

Yeah, those engines were designed for that. Thanks for agreeing.

Designed to tolerate it safely, which means acceptable levels of wear over the anticipated lifespan, consistent with the Honda paper shared by Shannow years back on the JDM push to use 0W-12 and 0W-8 lubricants.

 

[Nessism1]

How can higher viscosity keep the amount of fuel down?

By blocking fuel transfer through the rings. Thicker oil, will block fuel, more so than thin oil. Mind you, I'm not advocating moving up two grades. But moving from 0W-20 to 5w-30, should slow fuel moving into the crankcase. If anyone has a study to this effect, please share. The proof is in the doing.

 

[Sienna dude]

To be fully transparent and completely honest, I don't care if you believe it or not. It does absolutely nothing for me if you believe it or not. /shrug

Don't feed the trolls sir. Enjoy your day, and thank you for your service.

 

[Sienna dude]

Designed to tolerate it safely, which means acceptable levels of wear over the anticipated lifespan, consistent with the Honda paper shared by Shannow years back on the JDM push to use 0W-12 and 0W-8 lubricants.

The acceptable level of wear is a thing in all engines or just the ones designed to tolerate 0w8?

 

[ripcord]

Freshly changed oil is the least affected by fuel dilution. Just saying.

Don't feed the trolls bro. Enjoy your day.

Wow... he was replying to @Pablo who is a super long-timer on the site, has more posts than Moses and probably a decades long Amsoil dealer. About as far from a troll as one can get.

 

[ARB1977]

I have a new Pilot and running Amsoil SS 0w-20. I understand the switch to 0w-30 SS, but why switch to the Euro blend? Thanks

It’s thicker for one and can handle fuel dilution better. I saw a uoa someone posted with this oil in his pilot and did very well.

 

[OVERKILL]

The acceptable level of wear is a thing in all engines or just the ones designed to tolerate 0w8?

An acceptable level of wear underpins the foundation of every aspect of cost-conscious design and materials selection. From establishing maximums for things like wear, oxidation and viscosity loss in the API approvals, through to OEM specs for filtration efficiency. Some OEM's, through their own approvals, restrict wear beyond the levels mandated by baseline approvals from the API and/or ACEA, some don't. And of course some oils perform considerably better than just passing on these tests.

Things that operate in hydrodynamic experience zero wear. Things that operate in mixed or boundary experience wear. I've previously posted the Stribeck Curve, which I assume you've seen? There's a sweet spot for friction at the transition from hydrodynamic into mixed where friction drops off, it is this point that Japanese OEM's targeted with their lower viscosity lubricants, which increases wear slightly, as there's more operation in mixed, but reduces friction, which reduces fuel consumption.

Of course in order to facilitate this, they had to make some design changes, which we've discussed previously, such as special coatings on components and the widening of bearing journals.

So these engines are designed to tolerate thinner oils through these design changes, but it doesn't mean that they wouldn't experience less wear going up a bit in viscosity, reducing operation in the mixed regime, pushing more into hydrodynamic.

 

[OVERKILL]

Don't feed the trolls sir. Enjoy your day, and thank you for your service.

Ummm, Pablo has been a member here for 23 years, he's the furthest thing from a troll.

 

[Sienna dude]

An acceptable level of wear underpins the foundation of every aspect of cost-conscious design and materials selection. From establishing maximums for things like wear, oxidation and viscosity loss in the API approvals, through to OEM specs for filtration efficiency. Some OEM's, through their own approvals, restrict wear beyond the levels mandated by baseline approvals from the API and/or ACEA, some don't. And of course some oils perform considerably better than just passing on these tests.

Things that operate in hydrodynamic experience zero wear. Things that operate in mixed or boundary experience wear. I've previously posted the Stribeck Curve, which I assume you've seen? There's a sweet spot for friction at the transition from hydrodynamic into mixed where friction drops off, it is this point that Japanese OEM's targeted with their lower viscosity lubricants, which increases wear slightly, as there's more operation in mixed, but reduces friction, which reduces fuel consumption.

Of course in order to facilitate this, they had to make some design changes, which we've discussed previously, such as special coatings on components and the widening of bearing journals.

So these engines are designed to tolerate thinner oils through these design changes, but it doesn't mean that they wouldn't experience less wear going up a bit in viscosity, reducing operation in the mixed regime, pushing more into hydrodynamic.

I see. I mean what to do, these modern cars are not some 1972 FJ40. The rest of the car will wear out way before the engine does. I guess if you manage 15 years and 300,000 miles out of them that's accpetable level of wear lol.

My van's body is falling apart

 

[Pablo]

Don't feed the trolls sir. Enjoy your day, and thank you for your service.

It is a fair, and still waiting an evidence based answer, question. There was nothing personal nor trolling involved.

 

[HemiBenny]

5k lol. I am at 3.5% fuel at 4,500 miles and 4 weeks, and I am far from a short tripper. If I was a short tripper I would do 2000 miles or 2 months max.

Wow! 3.5% fuel @4500 / 4 weeks!
So, you put on that many miles in a month, and you still have 3.5%? That seems a bit excessive doesn’t it?
I understand GDI loads it up more, but I would believe that keeping the oil at operating temps should help mitigate fuel dilution a little better than that.
Maybe I need to send off for a UOA from a company that does a good job at detecting fuel dilution at the Mazda’s next OCI. It’s the only vehicle that we own that has GDI.

 

[Sienna dude]

Wow! 3.5% fuel @4500 / 4 weeks!
So, you put on that many miles in a month, and you still have 3.5%? That seems a bit excessive doesn’t it?
I understand GDI loads it up more, but I would believe that keeping the oil at operating temps should help mitigate fuel dilution a little better than that.
Maybe I need to send off for a UOA from a company that does a good job at detecting fuel dilution at the Mazda’s next OCI. It’s the only vehicle that we own that has GDI.

Do a UOA from Oil Analyzers. Also check your oil temps. If it is a cool running engine then I guess it is normal. One member here left a detailed comment that is helpful. We can't do anything about it. Change your oil regularly and hope for the best.


"While I don’t think anyone wants to see that kind of fuel dilution, I think you really need to step back and focus less on the supposed problem of dilution and more on what you know to be true:

• Your van has made it to 200k with no real issues. The consumption is well in check, the engine is performing quite well
• The wear indicators in UOA are showing very low wear.

In other words, if the fuel dilution was an actual problem, you would have seen something in 200k miles other than high fuel on your UOA. TBQH, if you weren’t running UOA, would you think for a moment there was any problem?


The low temps are a feature, not a bug in many ways. Yes they make it harder to burn off fuel dilution. But those same low temps also assure that:

• Your oil oxidation rate is super low
• Your viscosity is much higher in the running engine than the KV100 would indicate.
• The low temps slow some of the chemical reactions that make fuel dilution such an issue. (I.e. carboning).

All the hand wringing over loss of viscosity is not warranted when your oil temps are running 170F or so. Converting KV100 of 8.8 to KV70 (165F) would put you at 17.65cSt based on the published API SN data sheet values for KV40 and KV100. (I can’t find SP right now). That’s well into 50 grade range!

YOU DO NOT HAVE A LOW VISCOSITY PROBLEM.

Keep doing exactly what your doing and don’t sweat the non-issue of fuel dilution. your viscosity in actual engine running conditions is far above what the KV100 would suggest. Heck, you might be able to tolerate 10% or more dilution!

Dilution in and of itself is not a problem. Unchecked, it can certainly cause problems because fuel is a contaminant. But that’s why we change oil.

Given your steady usage with consistent temps, honestly you could probably make a mineral or blend 0w20 work on shorter ODIs quite cost-effectively, changing the filter every other time.

You are an attentive and conscientious owner and could use about any oil successfully. You’ve done well to get you this far, don’t question what’s worked for 200k"

 

[Jetronic]

How can higher viscosity keep the amount of fuel down?

it keeps more of it in the combustion chamber

 

[DirectRejection]

The phd's throw their arms up in the air. Fuel dilution can only be monitored and mitigated. Shorter OCIs, higher grades, beefier add packs...that's it.

Don't buy a vehicle known to be a fuel diluter, and consider your very own anticipated driving conditions prior to purchase.

"There is no free lunch."
Milton Friedman
.