A well broken in engine runs better than a new one provided it's well taken care of. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.motortrend.com/features/million-mile-tundra-the-tear-down/amp
Why does xw20 and xw30 show essentially the same/similar UOA but people blame cafe?
- Thread starter jalikaria24
- Start date
Well at least we both agree it's a bizarre perspective.
Yes, MOFT obviously doesn't stay as constant as the clearance in my analogy (at least until you lowered my underpass to an improbable height). I think you tend to mislead people by constantly implying "headroom" is more marginal than it actually is under normal realistic conditions.
Nobody knows how marginal the MOFT headroom is in car X with xW-16 or xW-20 based on every miles it's used in variable use conditions, but it will be lower than if the oil was thicker - a tribology fact for over 100 years and that will never change. When you see statements in OMs that says to use a thicker oil for high loads and high speeds, what do you think the reason was for them saying that. It's because more viscosity gives more MOFT in the same use conditions, and therefore more headroom before MOFT could go to zero and cause wear - there is nothing "misleading" about that.
Accusing me of misleading by stating facts is a pretty big stretch IMO. I'd rather have more MOFT even if the smaller MOFT was for the most part OK, but could certainly be running on the ragged edge in some situations. So what's the simplest way to ensure a bit more insurance (headroom) that the MOFT won't go to zero as easily? The answer is obvious. If people feel good about going thin, then by all means do it - their car, their money and their decision.
Last edited:
An engine keeps on running better until it starts to run worst.
A rare "thin" person will make a statement or ask a question then a hundred "thick" people will jump in to comment. These "thick" people have tens of thousands of posts each. They collectively jump onto those who hint of the use of a thinner oil as there is nothing worse in the world. The devil.
It has always amazed me how otherwise very intelligent people keep quoting a few old test articles using old oils (some not even fully formulated) as to why thin oils will damage engines. But they cannot see hundreds of millions of cars and light trucks over decades of time as having any worth at all as to why thin oils work well. Some of them say that these new thinner oils only work because they contain some new additives. So what, they work !! And why is it bad to enjoy better fuel economy and power with no additional wear expense??? Thick people seem always to quote this as something bad, very bad. WHY???
And another data point often sited is that some other country specifies a thicker oil than in the US. And therefore that car cannot last here for that reason. Really? Again, tens of millions of these cars and trucks over several decades are working just fine. Why is this fact of no scientific value?
It seems that oils in the "thick" countries are, over time, now gradually specifying thinner oils. Are these places trying to ruin your engines? Or maybe they realize that todays thinner oils provide needed protection and can give better fuel economy at the same time.
Maybe you cannot teach an old person new tricks. There is truth to this statement I think. 'Reminds me of some professors in my training days. Some would say they always did something the same way because it worked. They stick with the old. Other professors keep trying the latest and greatest new ways. They experiment for the greater good. These people advance over time as does the science.
I like to think of myself as part of that group. When I purchase a new car, plane, yard equipment, technical scuba equipment, I always, immediately change things, customize things. If somebody cares I can show you many changes I already made to my 812 Superfast. The Ferrari dealer is actually happy I did these things and in fact was looking forwards to see what I was going to do with the car when I took it home, (they know me). There were issues with the car that needed solutions and they could not wait to hear back from me.
ali
It has always amazed me how otherwise very intelligent people keep quoting a few old test articles using old oils (some not even fully formulated) as to why thin oils will damage engines. But they cannot see hundreds of millions of cars and light trucks over decades of time as having any worth at all as to why thin oils work well. Some of them say that these new thinner oils only work because they contain some new additives. So what, they work !! And why is it bad to enjoy better fuel economy and power with no additional wear expense??? Thick people seem always to quote this as something bad, very bad. WHY???
And another data point often sited is that some other country specifies a thicker oil than in the US. And therefore that car cannot last here for that reason. Really? Again, tens of millions of these cars and trucks over several decades are working just fine. Why is this fact of no scientific value?
It seems that oils in the "thick" countries are, over time, now gradually specifying thinner oils. Are these places trying to ruin your engines? Or maybe they realize that todays thinner oils provide needed protection and can give better fuel economy at the same time.
Maybe you cannot teach an old person new tricks. There is truth to this statement I think. 'Reminds me of some professors in my training days. Some would say they always did something the same way because it worked. They stick with the old. Other professors keep trying the latest and greatest new ways. They experiment for the greater good. These people advance over time as does the science.
I like to think of myself as part of that group. When I purchase a new car, plane, yard equipment, technical scuba equipment, I always, immediately change things, customize things. If somebody cares I can show you many changes I already made to my 812 Superfast. The Ferrari dealer is actually happy I did these things and in fact was looking forwards to see what I was going to do with the car when I took it home, (they know me). There were issues with the car that needed solutions and they could not wait to hear back from me.
ali
Do you think the Dealer really cares or they have the attitude hey you do you smile and laugh when you drive off.
“Do you think the Dealer really cares”
Yes I do.
The bottom hard plastic cover on the 812 is one piece from the very front to the very back of the car. It is huge and a PIA to remove and replace for a simple oil change. You have to unbolt it (many dozens of bolts, several added air dams). Then the front had to be slid backwards and the rear had to be slid forwards in order to remove the panel. It required a huge bow in the middle and several peoples hands.
I felt it would eventually weaken the plastic sheet so I sectioned the most foreward piece allowing access to the hoses and belts up front. A radiator hose required refitting. The dealer would have taken care of it but it was just easier for me to do it. I later sectioned the plate over the oil plugs and filter. Here was the dealers response when I sent pictures as the car was going to them for the scheduled oil change.
“I may have to connect you with the engineers in Maranello!”
Ali
Yes I do.
The bottom hard plastic cover on the 812 is one piece from the very front to the very back of the car. It is huge and a PIA to remove and replace for a simple oil change. You have to unbolt it (many dozens of bolts, several added air dams). Then the front had to be slid backwards and the rear had to be slid forwards in order to remove the panel. It required a huge bow in the middle and several peoples hands.
I felt it would eventually weaken the plastic sheet so I sectioned the most foreward piece allowing access to the hoses and belts up front. A radiator hose required refitting. The dealer would have taken care of it but it was just easier for me to do it. I later sectioned the plate over the oil plugs and filter. Here was the dealers response when I sent pictures as the car was going to them for the scheduled oil change.
“I may have to connect you with the engineers in Maranello!”
Ali
Seems many people read way between the lines in these kind of threads. The actual message from most of the "thick" people is that thinner oil may not provide adequate protection from metal-to-meal contact wear vs a thicker oil when used in certain conditions. I don't know why people can't take that at face value and instead think they are somehow saying that "there is nothing worse in the world. The devil".
I'm not sure if you've actually studied tribology and understand the relationship between HTHS viscosity and MOFT, or the difference between film thickness and film strength. All you have is that you put 0W-20 in a Ferrari and it seems to run good, and have a few UOAs on an engine that's still breaking in that's not really of any value to determine what's really going on.
I think people miss the point of what tribology says about what keeps moving parts separated, and how the viscosity plays the main role. This has been know ever since tribology existed. It's like the science of tribology is somehow beaten down on BITOG as junk science and ignored because millions of cars don't blow-up using thinner oil. Have you ever watched any of those YouTube videos where people put all kinds of stuff in the engine like WD-40, vegetable oil, kerosene, etc and the engine runs "good" for a very long time, and it takes tons a abuse and redline use to finally get it to blow-up (no surprise). But if someone just drove it around town in a normal way it would probably run for thousands of miles ... but I highly doubt there wouldn't be way more wear because of it. A UOA might not even show there was any extra wear, but if the engine was tore down you'd see a different story.
Why do you think the engineers who designed and tested those engines actually do specify thicker oils in the OM based on the use conditions when CAFE is not a factor?
Running a much thinner oil in an engine that specifies something much thicker isn't really proving that it's not doing something you can't detect. I've seen photos of rod bearings out of a 5.0L Coyote V8 that had obvious wear patterns on them, and the guy who owned the car said the UOAs never showed anything was abnormal. BTW - Ford now specifies 5W-30 instead of 5W-20 in the Coyote ... why do you think they made that move?
As many here have said, a UOA won't really raise a red flag until it's probably too late to do anything about it. You don't use your Ferrari in any kind of stressed conditions, but would you be brave enough to do a full day of track days at mostly WOT and near redline use with 0W-16 or 0W-20 in the sump? As said many times (and apparently often ignored), use conditions are involved with choosing a viscosity. I chose to go from 5W-20 to 5W-30 even for street use, not because I think 20 weight is "nothing worse in the world. The devil", but because I want a bit more added protection for any unforeseen use conditions. I could care less about saving a minuscule of fuel mileage or losing a few HP at WOT.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Excellent post.
There's a lot of punching at ghosts that takes place, based, it would seem, on either gross inference from things not said or, because it offends one who thinks that if it runs contrary to what they are doing, that they are somehow being singled out as a villain and this requires the erection of these defences.
We ran into the same in the oil filter section and some still absolutely refuse to get it. There's so much black and white perspective on a topic that's almost exclusively grey, that it gets extremely frustrating articulating positions on that and them being wildly misinterpreted or attacked via an army of strawmen.
So often technical data and professional papers are "refuted" by "I did a UOA" and "it didn't blow up so you are an idiot" type responses where people completely miss the forest for the trees because they either lack the will, or ability, to appreciate and comprehend the nuance.
I agree but in the everyday world HTHS, MOFT and headroom doesn't really matter to everyday owners and drivers of a vehicles that takes or was back spec'd to a thinner oil (5w-20). And this includes Desert driving, towing and climbing mountains in Summer heat.
These same engineers have extensively tested and proven that many vehicles can be back spec'd to lower viscosity oil (5w-20) with no harm to the engine. What has gotten the engineers into trouble and caused them to go up in viscosity are the small displacement and high output engines which puts quite a strain on crankshaft main bearings and connecting rod big end bearings. This includes the larger displacement high output engines from Ford, GM and Mopar.
Sure, but I'm not an "everyday owner or driver". As stated, I have my reasons for going a bit thicker. I like more headroom and state why regardless of driving conditions. Throw in more severe driving conditions and it makes it even easier to justify. People can take it or leave it, I don't care what other people do with their vehicles. I simply give the reasoning behind it.
Back speced for CAFE. But if you've read all these threads, there have been more than one source that says that going thinner does not always mean there isn't more wear. The term "no harm" is pretty nebulous. And as you've mentioned, using "thin as possible" without "harming" the engine doesn't always pan out ... hence why some manufactures have went back to a thicker oil on some engines, or why even some USA OMs make statements about using thicker oil for severe use conditions (obviously). As state, I'm not going to try and run the thinnest oil possible and would rather have some added protection (meaning more MOFT) because I simply can, regardless of how I drive. I really don't get why some people think it's "bad" to go a bit thicker than what the OM recommends (it's not a "required" statement in the OM). It's been proven many times that engines are not designed around an oil viscosity unless you start talking about vehicles specifying 0W-8 or maybe 0W-16, which have a different ILSAC GF-6 designation ("-6B" suffix for 16) and API logo on the bottle because they don't want people putting that thinner oil in vehicles not specifying it for reasons which seem pretty obvious.
Last edited:
I wasn't picking on you. There are people out there that need an oil with a higher HTHS but I'm talking about the average Joe. Where you get on my nerve is your constant beating on this subject that we all need the protection of MOFT just in case which simply isn't true.
I've been reading these threads for quite some time and haven't seen "all these threads". What I have read is going thinner is not a recommend blank statement. I would never use a thinner oil that the manufacturer hasn't approved or back spec'd. But making a blank statement you should go up a grade "just in case" is ridiculous for engines that are approved for the said grade. I have also read, by people in the know, That going up or down one grade without any harm whatsoever.
I don't think it's "bad" to up one grade and it will harm nothing. I'm using one grade lower in three of my vehicles that were designed for 5 and 10w-30. But all three were back spec'd by the factory. I surely would not if they were not.
CAFE: I wish everyone would stop blaming CAFE for thinner oils. It was actually the manufacturers (originally Ford and Honda) that requested the use and recommendation for the use of thinner oil (5w-20) in response to the EPA's new, at the time, fuel economy requirements.
See, this is what I was talking about reading between the lines. I just post the reasons why thicker oil gives more protection due to increase MOFT. I have NEVER said people better use thicker oil "just in case" or your engine is going to be destroyed - that's what I say I do. I use a bit thicker than recommended for the reasons I've stated, and have said many times that people can make up their own minds based on the reasoning. If they want to run thinner oil, then good for them ... it's not my vehicle so I could care less that people do. So I'd appreciate it if you knock off this misconception that people taking about using thicker oil is a message that going thinner is "bad" and that everyone should do it, because that's not really the overall message. People can make up their own mind based on what they read and research on the subject (there is lots of info out there).
Well, I've never made a statement that "going thinner is not recommended blanket statement". Go back and read carefully. I've said many times it depends on the use conditions, but I also say that for me based on reasons given, I go a bit thicker because I like headroom ... so what? That's a "just in case" for ME based on the reasons I've concluded to do so. Stop reading between the lines. Why would you or anyone else care that I want to do that with my vehicle? You seem to be trying to use me as a "thickie target" because you can't seem to accept the fact that thicker oil does provide better MOFT and protection between moving parts. Don't attack me or others that say the same thing (that more MOFT gives better headroom) because they don't see it the same way you do, and should just use what's "recommended" by the manufacture.
Of course going up a grade (or even two) isn't going to harm anything - nobody has any proof whatsoever that it will. Only way it might be "bad" is if someone used the wrong "W" rating in cold weather start-ups. I'm sure everyone could also go one grade lower than specified and they won't have any noticeable engine "harm" ... but it would take major harm for anyone sitting in the drivers seat to really tell. But going one grade lower could result in more wear, or maybe harm in some engines - I think Ford bumped back up to 5W-30 in the Coyote for a reason, and most likely based on wear and harm in some use conditions. Manufacturers who make high performance, high HP engines need to look at worse case use conditions by the type of people who buy those vehicles. Guys driving Mustangs around are going to beat the engine pretty good at times. That was the reason the Boss 302 came filled with 5W-50 from the factory - Ford knew those cars were not going to be babied.
CAFE doesn't dictate to the manufactures that they must use thinner and thinner oil .... but CAFE is indirectly a factor because the car manufacturers have CAFE targets (same as your bolded fuel economy requirements text above) to meet, and using thinner oil is one way (among many other ways) to try and hit the every increasing target. It costs them money if they can't meet the targets. If there was no CAFE I highly doubt many of these engines specifying xW-16 or xW-20 would be running that viscosity. Since Ford changed the viscosity back to 5W-30 on the Coyote in the F-150 and Mustang they must have made it up someplace else to meet CAFE, or took a ding on meeting the targets and made it up on the MSRP window sticker, lol.
Last edited:
True, but i think if the manufactuer uses a 0w16 to hit the cafe targets, then they are required to spec that oil for use. They have to spec the same oil for the manual that they used to meet the mileage test.
Of course ... the reason the OM and oil fill cap shows the "recommended" oil viscosity.
Talking to a brick. I'm done...
Seems you're not fully grasping what I'm actually saying without reading between the lines too much. I've explained the caveats of when thicker oil can be better - it's not all black and white. But instead seems you read what is said about MOFT and added headroom and try to discount it and turn it around as not ever being needed or benifical in any case, including "just in case" because thinner is "recommended" in the OM. Do you do anything different in life for "just in case" reasons? There is a lot of room in life to make "just in case" decisions.
If someone wants to increase viscosity "just in case" based on the fact that more viscosity results in more MOFT, then who are you to say everone who thinks that way is automatically saying thinner is "bad"? That's how you come across. Maybe some people here might say that, but I never have - I'm just saying thicker can be better, especially in more severe use conditions.
You obviously focused on me (triggered in post #19, lol) because you don't like people talking about any reasons thicker oil could be better. Just because some one talks about it doesn't mean they think everyone should do the same - people can decide for themselves.
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
I will likely do that when two things expire: factory warranty and my stash of M1 AP in 0W20
I do use my Fumoto to spike in a fresh quart at +/- 60% OLM - 5 minute job.
Will be putting in a Range AFM disabler soon too … Hey, I could of had a V8 !
Similar threads
- Locked
