Yet another thick vs thin oil question.

[Peted]

 Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Oh look -- 0w-20 and 0w-40 M1, back-to-back, same car, 0w-40 no better than the 20. . . Click here to see the UOAs. Read down to where the vis typo is corrected.

OR 0w20 no better than 0w40.

 

[FZ1]

Both. Synthetic is better.

 

[Gary Allan]

 Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie

Is there a technical requirement for anything over the 4.1cP that 15w-40 HD oils posess? imo, one of the smoothest oils I ever used was Delvac 15w-40.

There's no minimum requirement that exceeds an HTHS of 3.5 under ACEA. Depending on the alphabet soup, it can be a maximum (A5/B5) ..but that oil can't conform to the other specs. or so this leads me to believe.

 

[Forest]

What about SSO? It warms up to a 30 weight and it seems you want a oil that flows fast to keep heat down. I would think since it flows faster it should handle engine loads with the good additive pac. Am I right...wrong...all wet?

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Oh look -- 0w-20 and 0w-40 M1, back-to-back, same car, 0w-40 no better than the 20. . . Click here to see the UOAs. Read down to where the vis typo is corrected.

Why do you think a UOA is going to tell you which oil is "better"? Seriously?

 

[Forest]

but back to the 20w-50 vs. 15w-50M1 ..I think neither are required for the service you describe. I don't think you're going to see a longer life from your engine. Agreed.

 

[BuickGN]

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Oh look -- 0w-20 and 0w-40 M1, back-to-back, same car, 0w-40 no better than the 20. . . Click here to see the UOAs. Read down to where the vis typo is corrected.

Why do you think a UOA is going to tell you which oil is "better"? Seriously?

X2 I had a paragraph typed up but it's not worth it.

 

[ekpolk]

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Oh look -- 0w-20 and 0w-40 M1, back-to-back, same car, 0w-40 no better than the 20. . . Click here to see the UOAs. Read down to where the vis typo is corrected.

Why do you think a UOA is going to tell you which oil is "better"? Seriously?

Wow, both a red herring and an ad absurdum tucked neatly together in one line. . . First, exactly where did I say that a UOA will tell you whether or not one oil or another is "better"? I didn't. EDIT: reviewing my earlier post, I can see that I myself was vague. What I meant was that the 40 performed no better than the 20; I was NOT alleging that one oil was "better" than the other. My apologies for the confusion. . . Second, you are completely ignoring the context. The assumption amongst many members posting in this thread, and others like it, is that "thinner" oils are incapable of offering the same level of lubrication effectiveness as are "thicker" oils. UOA, at least the way we amateurs here use them, are not conclusive, but may offer clues as to possible issues with engine, oil, operating conditions, etc. (or of course, combinations of factors). Though the cited UOA is not, repeat not, conclusive, it is still pretty interesting to see a pair of UOA in which the 20 wt appears to have done just as well as a 40, in the context of multiple arguments that this can't be so. Now, what a UOA might show you is where one oil or another is more effective than another in certain measurable parameters. Note that neither here, nor anywhere else, do I use the hopelessly vague term, "better". In conclusion, let me turn it back to you, BGN, and rest of the thick worshipers: is it not interesting that there is virtually zero difference in the wear in this engine whether it's using a 20 wt oil or a 40? Yes, it's just one car, and yes, it's just amateur UOA, but still, those numbers are very steady.

 

[sparkplug]

I personally go for temperature. The summers here are warm and I tow and go off roading quite a bit so I put good old RT 15w40 in the Jeep. And since our winters are colder than a winters teat RT 5w40 or Synpower 5w30. Although I did pick up some M1 5w20 EP on clearance...

 

[Ibrahim]

one of my friends dad own's a Taxi Business, he has about 2 dozen cars, which he rents out to licensed cab drivers...he said to me that his dad orders barrels of Castrol Syntec 5W-50 for his entire fleet of cars, never till date any of his car's engines failed on him.... these taxi cars...are in use pretty much round the clock almost all the time...one guy brings in...another guy immediately takes out....i guess this oil must be something?

 

[StevieC]

Not the oil, it's the engine is hot all the time. It's the cool-down/heat-up that kills and engine over time. "To keep an engine running forever, you need to keep it running forever" I think this answers the question. My uncle had a 3.0 Litre Taurus and he worked nights as a courier moving stuff from one 24 hour operation to another. His son (my cousin) worked for the same company in the afternoons. So the car was litterally on the road for 16 hours a day non-stop. Then my aunt who worked in the day-time drove it to/from school about an hour each way so 18 hours each day minimum 5 days a week. The cars engine gave up at 602K KM due to my aunt overheating it and cracking the heads. The transmission was only rebuilt once in this time, which is fantastic for these transmissions which were known to have problems. ('96)

 

[aquariuscsm]

 Originally Posted By: BuickGN

[/quote]I had a paragraph typed up but it's not worth it.

Aw man! Seeing as I`m a member of the thick crowd,I would`ve loved to have read it! I always enjoy your posts.

 

[ekpolk]

Ibrahim: An interesting observation. Syntec 5w-50 doesn't seem to get much play here. I do recall comments to the effect that this product must, especially given its probable base oil makeup (largely G-III), contain a relatively large dose of VIIs. If this is so, I would surmise that especially in the usage you describe, this oil is probably shearing down significantly. Do you know what OCIs they're using?

 

[ekpolk]

 Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm

 Originally Posted By: BuickGN

I had a paragraph typed up but it's not worth it.

Aw man! Seeing as I`m a member of the thick crowd,I would`ve loved to have read it! I always enjoy your posts.

Hey, I'm a member of the "right oil for car" crowd, and I'd like to see what he had to say too. . .

 

[aquariuscsm]

 Originally Posted By: ekpolk

 Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm

 Originally Posted By: BuickGN

I had a paragraph typed up but it's not worth it.

Aw man! Seeing as I`m a member of the thick crowd,I would`ve loved to have read it! I always enjoy your posts.

Hey, I'm a member of the "right oil for car" crowd, and I'd like to see what he had to say too. . .

Reading your post just now made me realize something,it`s time for another coldie!

 

[BuickGN]

 Originally Posted By: ekpolk

[quote=OVERK1LL][quote=ekpolk] In conclusion, let me turn it back to you, BGN, and rest of the thick worshipers: is it not interesting that there is virtually zero difference in the wear in this engine whether it's using a 20 wt oil or a 40? Yes, it's just one car, and yes, it's just amateur UOA, but still, those numbers are very steady.

And it's been proven that UOAs only show the smaller wear particles. This engine could've been shedding massive quantities of large particles with the 20wt and you would never know. I assume this is why my massive engine wear in the GN didn't show up in a UOA. Use them for trending and showing the remaining oil life remaining but I think they're worthless in comparing one oil to another.

 

[ekpolk]

No, UOA is NOT "worthless" in comparing oil performance. You simply have to confine your conclusions to the parameters within which the information provided is valid. You can validly compare wear metals, so long as you understand you're looking at particles (EDIT: or dissolved material) below the filter's effective ability to remove them (but you've got to consider how much bypass there may have been). You can compare how well different oils stand up to fuel or coolant contamination. You can compare oils as to TBN retention and TAN. And so forth. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Like any other imperfect tool, confined to its proper "operating envelope" UOA is a very useful tool for comparing oils (and other things too). And like any other tool, misused, it can be misleading and destructive. As to this example, while you do have a point, I believe it highly improbable, though admittedly possible, that the engine might have been shedding large particles with the 20 but not the 40. Keep in mind that the reverse could just as well be true also. I remain convinced (but open minded) that this is a "happy and healthy" engine that will run just fine on a wide range of oils, and that the measures we can see (from simple UOA) indicate that the probability of massive, unseen problems, with either oil, is very, very low.

 

[ADFD1]

 Originally Posted By: BuickGN

 Originally Posted By: ekpolk

[quote=OVERK1LL][quote=ekpolk] In conclusion, let me turn it back to you, BGN, and rest of the thick worshipers: is it not interesting that there is virtually zero difference in the wear in this engine whether it's using a 20 wt oil or a 40? Yes, it's just one car, and yes, it's just amateur UOA, but still, those numbers are very steady.

And it's been proven that UOAs only show the smaller wear particles. This engine could've been shedding massive quantities of large particles with the 20wt and you would never know. I assume this is why my massive engine wear in the GN didn't show up in a UOA. Use them for trending and showing the remaining oil life remaining but I think they're worthless in comparing one oil to another.

This is true and a reason why I don't put a whole lot of faith in UOA's. Or the 40Wt could have been shedding masive particles too and we'd never know it. So it could work in either direction in this example. I remember reading a thread you had written about a good UOA and bad engine bearings, which totally convinced me that UOA's weren't the end all be all. What grade and brand oil were you running? How many miles on the engine? Was the car raced? The only way to really tell how good an oil is would be tearing down an engine. In extreme heat, towing, racing etc a heavier weight oil is probably the ticket no doubts in my mind. Thanks AD

 

[ekpolk]

All the more reason to use UOA in conjunction with other analytical tools. Inspecting the insides of filters is nothing new and done by many of us here. Good old crude blotter testing has some value as well (and costs a whole lot less than any UOA). But of course, without question, THE most important tool for determining what's going on inside your engine is this: I assume that if nothing else, we can agree upon that. . .

 

[StevieC]

That colourful picture might confuse some members of the board who are not equipped with such a device! I think this is why they can't see past the M1 debats in most threads... J/K