Why use thicker oil?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi,
Nickdfresh - Sludging of engines has been around almost forever! It is primarily a factor dominated by a few variables namely, engine breathing systems, lubricant quality, OCIs and application and etc. Excessive oil temperatures - even localised like in turbochargers for instance - is a major cause of rapid oxidation of inferior quality mineral lubricants - this can cause many problems

Sludging first became a real problem in Europe in the 1960s-1970s where the quality of the PCMOs didn't meet the engine's design needs. Some US engines of the 1950's were also prone to sludging with some lubricants - HDs lubricants (CAT Series 3 spec) always worked well in these

In the 1950s-1960s I quickly learned with BMC "A" and "B" Series engines and some US engines (in New Zealand) that the lubricant played a very real role in this end result - all other things being equal! This was confirmed later by my experiences in England and in Scandinavia over some years. It was the start of my love of HD (HDEO) lubricants in petrol engines. This was especially so in MB, VW and Porsche engines amongst many others including Studebaker Hawks etc etc.

This is a little less important today as PCMOs are of a much better quality and consistency between Brands - thanks largely due to ACEA (the API have been a "passenger" in this IMO over the years) and the ever increasing call for Manufacturer Approved and Listed lubricants

I cannot comment on the Toyota experience as it has not really been an issue here in OZ to my knowledge. The Toyotas in my "fleet" over the years (ranging from 1974 until the present) have all been deposit free even at very high mileages. Most (from 1979) have been fed a diet of synthetic lubricants right from their first OC. The use of a lessor lubricants than those specified is definately a reason for sludging as are OCIs that are too long and (perhaps) not monitored by UOAs. A general lack of basic maintenance amongst the general public confirms this

Serious sluging has persisted in diesel engines to this day where end users do not follow the engine maker's specifications for the lubricant and for OCIs required. I inspected a MB diesel engine last week that had failed for this very reason!

Experiences of oil starvation caused by sludging (or even perhaps by heavy varnishing) can stem from the oil pump's intake screen being much reduced in intake size (flow) by the deposits - either in bulk (sudden loss of OP - sludge) but usually by a gradual build up over time (varnish)

There is no doubt that some engine lubricants do keep engines much cleaner than others! I would always opt for the use of one of these - all other specifications being equal

What a long winded answer - sorry....................
 
Hi Doug,

Just curious, have you ever noticed any oil in particular that tends to varnish less than others? I know you are a fan of Mobil 1, does it do a better job in this area than say, Castrol? I think I remember you stating you had an engine failure using Castrol SLX due to varnish.

Thanks!
Tim
 
Hi,
glxpassat - I will happily answer your quaestion from my perspective. Others reading this will judge it as a biased answer but you are aware that I have no "linkage" to ant Oil Company!

Castrol's mineral lubricants have always been a leader in the sludge and varnish "race" for as long as I have worked with them - in some engine families! Their full synthetics have generally been excellent in my experience when used correctly. And yes, the original GC Formula SLX 0W-30 of 1995-6 was great at painting varnish in some engine families. They seemed to have gotten it right about six years after its release!

I cannot speak for the Syntec range but the Edge products seem to perform well

I have seen the products of Chevron-Caltex and Shell perform well across their range

My first involvement with the Mobil and Delvac range in the 1950-1960s proved to me then that generally they seem to be a leader in engine cleanliness - across their range. I have reported on a practical test in diesel engines some decades ago that convinced me of this then - that perspective has not changed
 
From what i have seen, manufactureres started specifying thinner oils, even for the same engine that they previously named a thicker oil for, purely to pass emissions and other environmental specs.....
 
Thanks so much Doug! One more little question - Does the Mobil 1 0w-40 in your neck of the woods list the API approvals like they do in Germany, as SM/SL/SJ/EC/CF? EC stands for "Energy Conserving". When it was SL rated in the US, it had the starburst on the front and was listed as energy conserving. When SM came along here, the starburst went away. From what I've seen, the SM versions that also have the API EC listing have the same specs as the older SL version, includeing VW 503.01.

Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
Hi,
Tim - This is the data on the label of the M1 0W-40 lubricant that has just gone into my Benz (and as was drained);

Meets API SM/CF and ACEA A3/B3/B4
Approved against MB229.3/229.5, BMW Longlife-01
VW502.00,503.01,505.00, GM LL A 025 and GM LL B 025
Porsche Approved

This version has these viscosities;
@40C = 80cSt
@100C = 14.3cSt
VI = 187

I have a 0W-40 container from 09/2001 and its label states;

API SJ, SJ/CF, SH and SH/CD Service Classifications
API "Energy Conserving" and "Energy Conserving II" requirements
ILSAC GF-1 and GF-2, ACEA A3-98, B3-98, B4-98
VW500.00, 505.00 performance, Japanese Valve Train Wear Test,
BMW Special List Approval, MB Sheet 229.1, Porsche Approval. Recommended by Porsche

This version had the following viscosities;
@40C = 71cSt
@100 = 13.4cSt
VI = 196

Summary
The viscosity of the SM version has risen over the last eight years and as you can see the SM version we get here has VW503.01 performance Approval but no API EC ratings
 
Thanks again Doug! Your SM version has the same viscosity specs as our older SL version. Also, yours states "Porsche Approved", whereas ours states "Porsche Approval 2002" (when it was still had an SL rating). Our version has a viscoity @ 100 of 14cst, and we also lost the VW 503.01 with SM. There are clearly two SM versions, yet Porsche only has approval for one, although I probably haven't seen the latest list (you sent me a copy about a year ago). Wish we could get the old stuff the rest of the world is getting!
 
Last edited:
Hi,
Tim - The 2006 Porsche Approval List had M1 0W-40 (SM/CF) validated until 10/2008

The latest List has M1 0W-40 validated until 10/2009

Porsche's DI engines (whole range) has pulled back the OC interval to one year and the same distances as previously. We will watch and see what TISBs ensue.

I will be in Zuffenhausen in May and I plan to discuss lubricants

And as for this Thread - IMO as stated earlier I consider that it is best to use the least viscous lubricant recommended by the Manufacturer for the ambient temperature range of intended operation
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: FrankN4
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
What GP III 10W-30 has a HTHS vis as high as 3.5?


Valvolin full synthetic MaxLife has a HTHS of 3.56 and meets ACEA A3.


Also, Supertech Synth 10w-30
 
Hi,
Tim - Sorry, but there are some other versions of M1 0W-40 on the current Porsche List - these are;

Valid until (?) in brackets

M1 0W-40 Formula C (02/2010)
M1 0W-40 ESP (05/2010)
M1 0W-40 FF 100 (10/2008)May have been renewed
M1 0W-40 Artic (10/2008)May have been renewed
M1 0W-40 New Life (08/2010)
 
Thanks Doug! I believe the Europeans get "Protection Formula", and we laughingly get "European Formula". Would you happen to see either of those names on the list?

I could send you an empty quart container, with maybe just a little oil in it, that you could show the Germans. My guess is they are not aware of the "Porsche Approval list 2002" that's being marketed here.
 
Thank you for your answer Doug.

For general note on my question, the Toyota "slugger" (in the 2.4L) thing was attributed to hot spots in the engines due to improper cooling rather than an out and out oil related failure by someone here. I think others claimed using a good synthetic like Mobil1 alleviated the problem. But that inferior quality mineral oils coupled with longer drain intervals could have made one a "silent recall" candidate...
 
Last edited:
Hi,
Nickdfresh - Engine design and especially that related to coolant flow and lubrication system parameters have caused localised "hot spots" and very predictable wear issues in some components - in some engine families!

The localised "hot spots" can produce ultra high coolant temps and oil temps in those areas beyond the capacity of some mineral lubricants - especially those that are too "thin" for the task! I have tried to point this out in this thread and alluded to the minimum HTHS viscosity as one aspect - a number of times

Sometimes these design flaws can be "masked" by "up-speccing" the lubricant type (mineral to synthetic) and viscosity! And often by increasing the sump size and coolant type too and etc!

As for localised engine "hot spots", anybody that has worked on early "Kafer" Volkswagens will know the results of that!

Engine design has come a long way - for some..............

Tim - I know the Director of the Porsche Museum and some ex Race car Engineers from the 1960s-1970s that now work there - lubrication was a topic the last time we met (at Philip Island - Porsche Classics in 2007) it will be this time too in Zuffenhausen
 
Last edited:
Doug
You can blend viscosities within a brand of oil and a line of oils to get a wanted 100C viscosity. Does this also work for the HTHS cp viscosities? Do you have any idea how you can calculate HTHS of blended oils?
 
Hi,
FrankN4 - Yes blending within a line (Brand/type) is acceptable in many cases. Some lubricants whilst they can be "mixed" within a Brand simply have their superior formulation diluted. This is the case with some M1 products

The viscosity calculators based on the VI and 40C or 100C temp Kinematic viscosities (or both) are unreliable/unsuitable at 150C as we know

For many though the reading will suffice as the variance in viscosites will give an indication over those of the originals

For me the extended period HTHS viscosity testing protocols used by some engine manufacturers is greatest way of highlighting the ability of the lubricant to "remain in specification" under real world operating conditions

For most (on BITOG at least) and IMO it is simply a case of understanding the ACEA "A" or "B" quality ratings for petrol engines and chosing an Approved lubricant, or one where the viscosity matches the Manufacturer's recommendations according to the expected ambient range

This is why some Oil Companies use the 40C rest point to measure viscosity in their UOAs. There will be greater variances shown at this point and greater accuracy than at the 100C rest as many Labs currently use. This aspect was confirmed by Mobil's Lab Management this week - and as it was to me some four or so years ago when they first made the changeover. Testing at 100C is optional as it has been ever since
 
Last edited:
Quote:
I have tried to point this out in this thread and alluded to the minimum HTHS viscosity as one aspect - a number of times


And this point is well taken, Doug
55.gif


There's a long list of qualifiers that go into this mix.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: FrankN4
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
What GP III 10W-30 has a HTHS vis as high as 3.5?


Valvolin full synthetic MaxLife has a HTHS of 3.56 and meets ACEA A3.


Also, Supertech Synth 10w-30


Supertech Synthetic is SM/GF-4, so it can't be ACEA as well.
 
Hi,
Drew99GT - Yes this is very interesting. Some other Brand lubricants do claim A3 compliance too. But they cannot also have GF-4 compliance as well as I percieve it.

Up until 1999 Porsche specced some 30 or so SAE30 lubricants - but stopped that in that MY. It appears that whilst some SAE30 lubricants do indeed pass the A3 HTHS spec they may fail (fall) quite rapidly in long term high temperature applications
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom