I was just wondering why 0W-X's oils show moderate to high wear values? I thought most of the wear was at start up? If this is true and 0W oils protect best at start up, then why do they show poor wear numbers? For example, Motul 8100 E-Tech 0W-40 or Lubro Moly 0W-40? I like the idea of the quick lubrication for start up, but not those high wear values. Unless the oil, that is being pumped sooner, is colder and that creates those wear numbers, any thoughts?
Why do 0W-X's show moderate to high wear values?
- Thread starter brianpavlovic
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Do they? Objectively, I think it will be difficult to substantiate that claim. Have you noticed a consistend trend of increased wear with 0W-40 oil?
You'd have to compare the wear in the several of the same engine with various viscosities under the exact same conditions with UOA performed with the same equipment and test procedures.
Subjectively, I feel that 0W-X oils leave a comparatively thin oil film behind after the engine has been turned off. Seems the thin oil "runs" off? While a thin oil may get to the bearings and friction surfaces faster upon startup, I wonder if this advantage is not offset by the thicker oil film left behind by a thicker oil. My observation was that in case of 0W-40 oil in my OHC engine, the cam lobes would not feel greasy, essentially dry after a day, while a 5W-40 oil left noticeably more oil on the cams. Whether or not it affects wear negatively, I don't know. It may well depend on individual engine and lubrication system design. Intuitively, I'd favor more residual oil on engine parts over marginally faster flow at startup.
Need your stats before this can be a valid discussion.
Prove it. This site has been slipping lately. Let's stick with a bit more factual discussions.
No problem. I don't pretend to know exactly why, but here you go.
M1 0w-30 vs. M1 5w-30
Chromium, Iron, and Copper were all half with 5w that they were with 0w.
JohnnyO - Here's the wear metals from your 4.0L Ford Ranger UOA per the above link.
M1 0W-30 5W-30
Alum 7...7
Chromium 2..1
Iron 33...16
Copper 4...2
Lead 1...1
Tin 1...0
Yes, iron at 33 is higher for the 0W-30, but per your comments, this OCI was during a Pittsburgh winter & probably can be attributed to corrosion from cold weather conditions.
Chromium, copper & tin are all basically the same number. This sample could be tested 3 times and the copper result may vary from 2 to 4 - it's all within the sampling error of the test.
Here's a good comparison of multiple OCI's posted by Chucky2 for a Ford Ranger 4.0L.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002754
Note that copper bounces from 2 thru 5 for the eight samples, but for practical purposes, it's all statistically the same number.
I don't disagree, and this is only two UOA's over two OCI's, however I'd think that 0w-30 would be better in winter than 5w-30.
UOA says otherwise, and if the iron drops like that there can be other variables but the big difference has to be the oil.
I just saw the thread and figured I'd toss in my UOA's for the sake of discussion since I compared both.
Looking at Chucky2's M1 UOA's with the same engine, I've still got to say that my iron was screaming with that 0w-30.
0w oils find their way into hi-performance and turbo engines with long OCI in winters.
In my Toyota, time of year or other factors seem to matter more than the oil type, 0W or 5W.
http://home.illicom.net/users/jsharp/personalphotos/OA/Toyota_oil_anaylsis_5.jpg
The first 2 intervals are M1 5W-30.
Then two runs of GC
Then one of M1R
Note the sample dates on the reports and you can tell which oil was run during what part of the year. Winter is not a good thing for engines.
http://home.illicom.net/users/jsharp/personalphotos/OA/Toyota_oil_anaylsis_5.jpg
The first 2 intervals are M1 5W-30.
Then two runs of GC
Then one of M1R
Note the sample dates on the reports and you can tell which oil was run during what part of the year. Winter is not a good thing for engines.
Statistically then things could be the same or relatively close considering the error in testing the oil as well as all the factors that play over the OCI, yes?
I thought that it was mentioned around here that differences in PPM most often seen around here are mostly nothing to tense up about...but I digress.
As for 0w-xx oils seeming to show increased wear...the 0w-40 comparison may not be as common a viscosity that people use around here, and shouldn't be compared with the wear rate of a 30 weight, as it's believed a higher viscosity across the board - though still within a max spec to be classified as a 0w for cold start conditions.
For comparison...
_____________(cSt's)_______(cSt's)__________(cSt's)
Temp (c)___M1 0w-30__M1 EP 5w-30__M1 0w-40
-40_________16395_________-____________19722
-30__________5248_______6037___________6718
-20__________1995_______2229___________2661
-10___________872________952___________1198
0_____________428________459____________599
10____________231________244____________328
20____________135________141____________193
30_____________85_________87____________121
40_____________56_________57_____________80
50_____________39_________39_____________55
60_____________28_________28_____________40
70_____________21_________21_____________30
80_____________16_________16_____________23
90_____________13_________13_____________18
100____________10.3_______10.25__________14.32
I hope I transfered these calculated numbers correctly, and of which were rounded to the nearest whole number with the exception of the last row.
I thought that it was mentioned around here that differences in PPM most often seen around here are mostly nothing to tense up about...but I digress.
As for 0w-xx oils seeming to show increased wear...the 0w-40 comparison may not be as common a viscosity that people use around here, and shouldn't be compared with the wear rate of a 30 weight, as it's believed a higher viscosity across the board - though still within a max spec to be classified as a 0w for cold start conditions.
For comparison...
_____________(cSt's)_______(cSt's)__________(cSt's)
Temp (c)___M1 0w-30__M1 EP 5w-30__M1 0w-40
-40_________16395_________-____________19722
-30__________5248_______6037___________6718
-20__________1995_______2229___________2661
-10___________872________952___________1198
0_____________428________459____________599
10____________231________244____________328
20____________135________141____________193
30_____________85_________87____________121
40_____________56_________57_____________80
50_____________39_________39_____________55
60_____________28_________28_____________40
70_____________21_________21_____________30
80_____________16_________16_____________23
90_____________13_________13_____________18
100____________10.3_______10.25__________14.32
I hope I transfered these calculated numbers correctly, and of which were rounded to the nearest whole number with the exception of the last row.
So what does it exactly mean?
You looked at 20 different engines, operated under who nose what conditions and make a conclusion that the wear numbers are nothing special.
How do you know that some or all of those engines don't naturally show a significant amount of the wear metals?
Been operated under the extreme conditions, towed a trailer, seen lots of short trips etc?
Sorry, your data doesn't prove anything.
You chose an unscientific approach therefore it didn't produce meaningful results..
"GC doesn't seem to show particularly good wear numbers on average. Summary info from 20 sequential UOAs on this site"
Compared to what?
Compared to what?
Compared to what?
Havoline/Chevron/Delo:
Hav Al Fe Pb Cu
3 2 5 6 2
4 6 6 14 25
4 5 7 0 0
4 7 5 5 5
4 2 5 3 4
7 5 11 3 7
3 1 6 1 3
4 2 6 2 21
3 2 7 4 1
3 2 4 13 15
10 3 9 11 1
3 2 7 3 2
7 3 8 0 2
3 3 15 2 1
7 7 4 0 6
5 2 5 2 7
5 2 5 2 8
4 2 21 3 2
6 1 3 0 4
5 7 14 8 8
94 0.7 1.63 0.87 1.32
Castrol GTX:
Castrol Al Fe Pb Cu
3 3 13 0 ?
4 3 7 1 2
5 1 4 1 4
3 0 0 1 2
3 3 4 5 2
8 8 25 1 11
5 1 6 8 2
4 11 12 4 6
3 5 10 0 2
3 6 14 0 3
5 6 18 3 35
3 3 5 0 2
5 4 8 3 3
4 8 13 3 10
3 3 5 2 2
5 3 6 11 28
3 7 9 9 5
4 7 7 3 17
7 3 6 5 2
3 4 11 12 4
83 1.07 2.2 0.87 1.71
Mobil 1:
M1 Al Fe Pb Cu
4 2 17 0 44
4 3 13 0 7
5 4 14 0 10
8 8 17 12 8
8 4 12 4 24
8 3 9 2 5
4 8 3 4 4
4 12 3 4 6
5 3 17 21 4
10 4 23 2 6
8 2 11 1 4
7 3 14 0 3
5 2 7 9 3
5 2 6 0 1
8 3 8 6 3
7 3 9 1 7
9 3 15 2 6
6 5 7 0 7
5 4 6 1 5
6 4 14 7 5
126 0.65 1.79 0.6 1.29
- Glenn
Havoline/Chevron/Delo:
Hav Al Fe Pb Cu
3 2 5 6 2
4 6 6 14 25
4 5 7 0 0
4 7 5 5 5
4 2 5 3 4
7 5 11 3 7
3 1 6 1 3
4 2 6 2 21
3 2 7 4 1
3 2 4 13 15
10 3 9 11 1
3 2 7 3 2
7 3 8 0 2
3 3 15 2 1
7 7 4 0 6
5 2 5 2 7
5 2 5 2 8
4 2 21 3 2
6 1 3 0 4
5 7 14 8 8
94 0.7 1.63 0.87 1.32
Castrol GTX:
Castrol Al Fe Pb Cu
3 3 13 0 ?
4 3 7 1 2
5 1 4 1 4
3 0 0 1 2
3 3 4 5 2
8 8 25 1 11
5 1 6 8 2
4 11 12 4 6
3 5 10 0 2
3 6 14 0 3
5 6 18 3 35
3 3 5 0 2
5 4 8 3 3
4 8 13 3 10
3 3 5 2 2
5 3 6 11 28
3 7 9 9 5
4 7 7 3 17
7 3 6 5 2
3 4 11 12 4
83 1.07 2.2 0.87 1.71
Mobil 1:
M1 Al Fe Pb Cu
4 2 17 0 44
4 3 13 0 7
5 4 14 0 10
8 8 17 12 8
8 4 12 4 24
8 3 9 2 5
4 8 3 4 4
4 12 3 4 6
5 3 17 21 4
10 4 23 2 6
8 2 11 1 4
7 3 14 0 3
5 2 7 9 3
5 2 6 0 1
8 3 8 6 3
7 3 9 1 7
9 3 15 2 6
6 5 7 0 7
5 4 6 1 5
6 4 14 7 5
126 0.65 1.79 0.6 1.29
- Glenn
Vad:
"So what does it exactly mean?
You looked at 20 different engines, operated under who nose what conditions and make a conclusion that the wear numbers are nothing special.
How do you know that some or all of those engines don't naturally show a significant amount of the wear metals?
Been operated under the extreme conditions, towed a trailer, seen lots of short trips etc?
Sorry, your data doesn't prove anything.
You chose an unscientific approach therefore it didn't produce meaningful results.. "
Vad, I disagree.
1) Twenty different UOAs is enough that unusual circumstances should be starting to average out. Also the patterns here are similar to those that showed up a few weeks ago when I did a similar survey with just ten UOAs. If the results were showing random fluctuations that would not likely be the case.
2) Chevron oils' really good results, for example (see my last follow-up post), are much more consistent than, say, GC's often-good results. A lot of people use Chevron products for tough duty, and OCIs here are as high as 10k miles (the max I used for all oils). If anything I bet fewer people are using GC for heavy towing.
3) You call this unscientific, but science is just the systematic search for the truth. This is exactly that. You can argue with the details, but this is a much more scientific approach to the matter than a non-quantitative rhetorical (theoretical) approach, although that is useful as well.
4) I've done some digging and come up with some results. You can argue all day those results aren't valid, but what is your basis in fact? Where are your proofs? How do you know what you're seeing isn't good valid information? It seems to me that if you disagree, then the burden of proof ought to be on you to show countervening factual evidence.
- Glenn
"So what does it exactly mean?
You looked at 20 different engines, operated under who nose what conditions and make a conclusion that the wear numbers are nothing special.
How do you know that some or all of those engines don't naturally show a significant amount of the wear metals?
Been operated under the extreme conditions, towed a trailer, seen lots of short trips etc?
Sorry, your data doesn't prove anything.
You chose an unscientific approach therefore it didn't produce meaningful results.. "
Vad, I disagree.
1) Twenty different UOAs is enough that unusual circumstances should be starting to average out. Also the patterns here are similar to those that showed up a few weeks ago when I did a similar survey with just ten UOAs. If the results were showing random fluctuations that would not likely be the case.
2) Chevron oils' really good results, for example (see my last follow-up post), are much more consistent than, say, GC's often-good results. A lot of people use Chevron products for tough duty, and OCIs here are as high as 10k miles (the max I used for all oils). If anything I bet fewer people are using GC for heavy towing.
3) You call this unscientific, but science is just the systematic search for the truth. This is exactly that. You can argue with the details, but this is a much more scientific approach to the matter than a non-quantitative rhetorical (theoretical) approach, although that is useful as well.
4) I've done some digging and come up with some results. You can argue all day those results aren't valid, but what is your basis in fact? Where are your proofs? How do you know what you're seeing isn't good valid information? It seems to me that if you disagree, then the burden of proof ought to be on you to show countervening factual evidence.
- Glenn
Sorry, Glenn.
Twenty random cars don't form a statisticall bsample.
I understand your passion for Chevron.
Still, every oil has its purpose.
I don't know why you Chevron guys are trying to pick on GC.
It's a different oil designed for a different purpose, usually used by a different kind of drivers, who operate their cars under different hardly ideal circumstances.
This is all speculation on your part.
Please provide some evidence.
Regarding the 10K mi OCI on Chevron. Are you talking about the recent sample?
When the vehicle has been operated under the most ideal conditions I've seen so far on this board?
Common, Glenn...
Posted by JohnnyO:
The problem here is that you ask a question that's not really a question at all. It's a declaration of its author's opinions and biases about these oils. It assumes that it's built in premise is a given, proven fact, and then tries to slip on by to a "discussion" of why the assumed fact is a fact. It further uses vague terms ("moderate" and "high" to be precise) to fudge its way to legitimacy.
Ask a neutral, fair and balanced question, using precise terms, and then let's see where this goes.
Hold on. You're claiming that you can make blanket conclusions about all 0w-Xs under all circumstances based upon one pair of samples, from one vehicle, of one brand of oil, each sample taken under one set of climate conditions??? If I were to apply that standard of decision to my own results, I'd be entitled to conclusively declare the premise of your question invalid.
The problem here is that you ask a question that's not really a question at all. It's a declaration of its author's opinions and biases about these oils. It assumes that it's built in premise is a given, proven fact, and then tries to slip on by to a "discussion" of why the assumed fact is a fact. It further uses vague terms ("moderate" and "high" to be precise) to fudge its way to legitimacy.
Ask a neutral, fair and balanced question, using precise terms, and then let's see where this goes.
- Status
Similar threads
