Yet another thick vs thin oil question.

[Whimsey]

I believe that US auto manufactures give us "their best compromise oil" recommendation for the entire US not based upon regions or seasons or vehicle usage. Especially since they want the OCI to based upon miles/time, not seasons. I live in temperate northern NJ and don't "strain" my vehicles so the manufacture's recommended oil is fine for me. If I lived in a different type of climate or used my vehicle differently I might well choose a different weight oil. In my pre-BITOG days I always thought that "thickerer is betterer" so I used Castrol Syntec 5W-50 in my 4cyl Zetec Contour which was spec'd for 5W-30. While it ran ok my mpg suffered to the tune of 5-7 mpg and the "seat of the pants feel" definately suffered big time. After 2 years I went back to 5W-30 and my mpg went back up and it felt much peppier. Did I do any harm using the heavier oil? I highly doubt it. And if I did the rest of the car would give out before the engine anyway. This car was spec'd for 5W-30 but was back spec'd a few years ago to use 5W-20. Do I use 5W-20? No, I run it hard and rev at redline frequently. I feel more comfortable using the 5W-30. My F-150 with the 4.6 was spec'd for 5W-20 and have no problem using it as I don't run the truck hard. Would I use 5W-30 in it? In a heart beat with a clean conscience, but the 5W-20 works great in my circumstances according to my UOA's. Whimsey

 

[aquariuscsm]

Maybe one of these days I`ll do a UOA on my car. I`m very curious to what it will say. The thing in UOA`s that concern me are the excessive wear metals with synthetics as opposed to cheaper dinos like YB. I,like many others experienced slighty more engine "noise" with synths. Does more engine noise and higher wear metals=more engine wear? Me,I have no idea since I`m not an engineer,but in my layman`s opinion,a quieter,smoother engine would mean less engine wear.

 

[Gary Allan]

The thicker heads have science on their side. 1sttruck, one very bright member, has to resort to diesel and machine studies to quote the authoritative sources. In the machine studies the immutable hydrodynamic bearing physics is quoted as being the primary factor coming to bear. XS650, and Shannow (currently in close combat with a guy named Sommerfeld, so he's tied up) point out that when you reduce viscosity, bearing surfaces get closer and the close side film gets harder. It would be foolish to argue with either of them. However... That doesn't dictate that the process variable goes beyond any given visc's ability to keep the two surfaces apart under any conditions that any given machine may encounter ..where asperities are closer to making contact ..but never do. Without some newer light bulb getting a switch thrown, it's as static to me as saying that a 6" I beam is stronger than a 3" I beam. Suppose I'm only supporting 50lbs ..and factor a 6:1 safety factor I need this acute insight that escapes me (not being funny). Playing the role of "the advocate", I'm forced to look for the legions of destroyed engines and their lack of presence ..or rather they're still present and not absent. I have to assume that you can't trump universal constants and physics ..so there has to some conditional view that moves them into a much smaller corner than they're given credit for ..as steadfast and enduring as they may be

 

[ekpolk]

 Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

The thicker heads have science on their side. 1sttruck, one very bright member, has to resort to diesel and machine studies to quote the authoritative sources. In the machine studies the immutable hydrodynamic bearing physics is quoted as being the primary factor coming to bear.

Gary, respectfully, no, they don't. Science in a vacuum does not lubricate the engines which we mere mortals put out on the streets every day. If we're going to answer the question of which vis range is most effective on the street, we have to take into account the "real life" street variables. IMO, the "thick is better" crowd here considers only isolated laboratory theory when they declare that "thick is better than thin". As I've asked many times here before, if the "thick-thin" variable is the only operative variable, then where, after eight years of Ford and Honda prescribing 20 wt oils, are the junkyards full of prematurely dead Fords and Hondas? Such junkyards DO NOT EXIST because in the real world, additional operative variables trump the narrow, one-dimensional thick-thin theory. . . .

 Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

That doesn't dictate that the process variable goes beyond any given visc's ability to keep the two surfaces apart under any conditions that any given machine may encounter ..where asperities are closer to making contact ..but never do.

My thought is that so long as the surfaces are not making contact, then the "superior" ability of a thicker oil to keep surfaces apart is totally and completely irrelevant. An extreme expression of this idea would be, "hey, if AIR alone can keep the surfaces apart, then who cares about what's theoretically ideal -- the "lesser" lube is accomplishing the mission -- while at the same time providing better fuel economy. I'll take that "compromise" any day!

 Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

... I have to assume that you can't trump universal constants and physics ..so there has to some conditional view that moves them into a much smaller corner than they're given credit for ..as steadfast and enduring as they may be

Absolutely true. You can't "trump" the laws of physics, but on the other hand, we live in the world of "applied physics". If in the application in question, there is no real penalty for using a more fuel-economical oil, vs a thicker one just because it's thicker, they hey, I'd choose the thinner one.

 

[ArcticCat]

 Originally Posted By: 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...

You're wrong on this one 'ekpolk'. A $30 IS next to worthless in comparing wear metals produced by different oils. This very basic UOA is only going to pick up particles that are less than ~10 microns (some UOA's only pick up particles less than 5 microns), while your oil filter only picks up particles that are greater than ~20 microns. You are thus 'blind' to particles in the 10-20 micron range. An engine that is experiencing higher than normal wear will have an elavated amount of larger particles, while the number of <10 micron particles may not be significantlyhigher than normal. Thus trying to draw meaningful conclusions based only on the wear metals showing up on your $30 UOA (the ones less than 10 microns) while being blind to the more relevant larger wear particles (greater than 10 microns) is foolish.

 

[ekpolk]

 Originally Posted By: ArcticCat

 Originally Posted By: 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...

You're wrong on this one 'ekpolk'. A $30 IS next to worthless in comparing wear metals produced by different oils. This very basic UOA is only going to pick up particles that are less than ~10 microns (some UOA's only pick up particles less than 5 microns), while your oil filter only picks up particles that are greater than ~20 microns. You are thus 'blind' to particles in the 10-20 micron range. An engine that is experiencing higher than normal wear will have an elavated amount of larger particles, while the number of <10 micron particles may not be significantly higher than normal. Thus trying to draw meaningful conclusions based only on the wear metals showing up on your $30 UOA (the ones less than 10 microns) while being blind to the more relevant larger wear particles (greater than 10 microns) is foolish.

No, I am not wrong on this. You are making the mistaken assumption that the value of UOA is all or nothing, AND you are mis-characterizing what I'm saying about UOA. You are also overlooking the fact that I usually order particle counts with UOA. I have never assumed, nor argued, that basic UOA is the be all and end all answer to what's happening in an engine. As I've already noted, you have to look at all the available information, in combination, before drawing any conclusions. Here's a hypo to consider: you do two UOAs, same vehicle, different oils, where virtually all the other variables remain the same, or very similar. On the first UOA, the Iron is normal. On the second, it shoots up to a much higher level. Now, off the bat, obviously this does not necessarily mean that the second oil is at fault. It could very well be other things. But nevertheless, the UOA provides the initial information that the owner can use to track down whether there is an issue, and if so, how to fix it.

 Originally Posted By: ArcticCat

Thus trying to draw meaningful conclusions based only on the wear metals showing up on your $30 UOA (the ones less than 10 microns) while being blind to the more relevant larger wear particles (greater than 10 microns) is foolish.

Perhaps you should consider the foolishness of condemning another poster, without having bothered to understand what that poster is saying. Please show me where I've said, ever, that I advocate relying solely upon low cost UOA results in drawing "meaningful conclusions". Beyond that, what's your alternative? Fly blind until one day, your engine fails with no warning? You attack those of us who try to make some use of UOAs, but on the other hand, you don't offer anything that's any better. I will repeat: I use UOA, blotter cards, filter inspection, and the subjective signs my engines send, in order to determine whether further examination is necessary. And even then, I very well understand that there will be many things I can not determine from readily available sources of information. So, what alternative do you propose for finding those larger particles that MAY not be detected in a low cost UOA???

 

[Gary Allan]

We're in agreement ..but I think your idle time is forcing you to don your bar technique hat to prevent it from going into atrophy

 Quote:

Gary, respectfully, no, they don't.

Well, they do, with qualifications. Diesels, typically, and industrial machinery tend to be money producers or support mechanisms for money production. They default to accounting for the most productive use. You don't design a OTR truck or bulldozer to be loafing along ..nor do you spec the lube systems for "time weighted average" loading or where the vast majority of the load will be on average or anything like that. Everything is already factored for the most sensible productive level of operation. Maximum utility 24/7/365. Highest productivity with the lowest maintenance costs ..factoring in avoided costs..fatigue rates ..blah..blah..blah So, if a heavy duty diesel (or any diesel for that matter) spec's a 15w-40 ..or some piece of industrial equipment spec's ISO XXX fluid ..that's what you use. The very concept of the device has been massaged and noodled with those specified lubricants producing the best outcomes under the specified services in terms of practical return on your capital investment ..or necessary cost of doing whatever you're doing. No one has an argument with that. The same can usually be said about our higher output Euro-Alloy. The above examples could well be created in the vacuum of a laboratory. They merely eliminate most of the inconsequential air in the process.

 Quote:

My thought is that so long as the surfaces are not making contact, then the "superior" ability of a thicker oil to keep surfaces apart is totally and completely irrelevant. An extreme expression of this idea would be, "hey, if AIR alone can keep the surfaces apart, then who cares about what's theoretically ideal -- the "lesser" lube is accomplishing the mission -- while at the same time providing better fuel economy. I'll take that "compromise" any day!

..again, you're singing to the preacher ( ) I keep challenging those who think "more protection" ..when they don't have a clue of what "required protection" is. Not that I necessarily do either.. in any definitive way, but I can manage to cite examples of where someone, like GM for example, doesn't specify a heavier oil for the most severe service one might encounter, but rather shortens the duration of use for a given visc fluid. That's why I attempt to convey the concept of "margins". It's the same on a piece of paper or whatever. If you don't draw outside the lines, does it matter if it's 1" ..or 1mm? Everyone must think that they're very sloppy writers.

 

[Ibrahim]

quite frankly I do not know the exact OCI my friends dad is using, but if I roughly recall that he certainly was not using 5000KM... the very reason i remember this because I freaked out while speaking to him when he said "oh my dad only changes oil once in every month and half to 2 months... I was like, what do u mean?!?!... isn't that bit too early?...he was like no not at all...actually it is very impressive, unlike others in the same businesses do it far earlier... he went on to say that his father uses a thick synthetic oil (Syntec 5W-50) and since he buys in barrels he gets it a bargain price... i am sorry i do not have exact mileage...but my guess is it has to be between 12-20K km or 7.5-12.5K miles!

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: ekpolk

No, I am not wrong on this. You are making the mistaken assumption that the value of UOA is all or nothing,

No, I think he's stating that for the use of determining engine WEAR, which a LOT of people on this site do, it is basically useless. And he would be correct in that statement.

 Quote:

AND you are mis-characterizing what I'm saying about UOA.

I think his statement is meant to broadly address those using $30.00 UOA's to find the "holy grail" of engine oil... Not to you specifically.

 Quote:

You are also overlooking the fact that I usually order particle counts with UOA.

You would be in the minority though. You are not the one being discussed, as your technique, since you use things like particle counts, steps outside the scope of the $30.00 UOA crowd....

 Quote:

I have never assumed, nor argued, that basic UOA is the be all and end all answer to what's happening in an engine. As I've already noted, you have to look at all the available information, in combination, before drawing any conclusions.

It is a good indication of contamination level, oil life depletion, and can act as a great indicator for things like coolant leaks, fuel dilution...etc. Not so great for monitoring what people like to call "wear metals", because they may not be from wear.

 Quote:

Here's a hypo to consider: you do two UOAs, same vehicle, different oils, where virtually all the other variables remain the same, or very similar. On the first UOA, the Iron is normal. On the second, it shoots up to a much higher level. Now, off the bat, obviously this does not necessarily mean that the second oil is at fault. It could very well be other things. But nevertheless, the UOA provides the initial information that the owner can use to track down whether there is an issue, and if so, how to fix it.

This involves trending though. And the size of the spike would have to be factored into how one categorized the severity. If it was only a few PPM, then that falls into the category of noise. Since we (not you, as you do particle counts) in general are dealing with particles less than 10 microns, as the poster above noted, then exactly what ARE we looking at? Not much. Any sort of large mechanical failure is going to create particles LARGER than 10 microns, which, like in BuickGN's example, DO NOT show up in your typically Blackstone UOA. So here, you can have somebody thinking things are hunky-dory, when they are NOT, or could have somebody thinking their engine is coming apart when a pocket of deposits became uprooted, dissolved, and some <10 micron iron particles were put in suspension in the oil. This is why Doug, and OTR truckers use UOA's to monitor CONTAMINATION levels, check for coolant leaks, and watch TAN and TBN to gauge their OCI's. That is the PURPOSE of this TOOL.

 Quote:

Perhaps you should consider the foolishness of condemning another poster, without having bothered to understand what that poster is saying. Please show me where I've said, ever, that I advocate relying solely upon low cost UOA results in drawing "meaningful conclusions".

But MANY on here DO. And unless you explicitly preface your posts with "I do particle counts too, and not just basic $30.00 UOA's", and refrain from citing UOA's in posts that ARE just basic UOA's and using them as EXAMPLES, like was done earlier, than you ARE enforcing that mindset. Obviously not intentionally, but without that sort of disclaimer, nobody KNOWS that you are not just doing the same thing they are.

 Quote:

Beyond that, what's your alternative? Fly blind until one day, your engine fails with no warning? You attack those of us who try to make some use of UOAs, but on the other hand, you don't offer anything that's any better.

Lets flip this over: He could live contently in ignorant bliss doing regular OCI's and his engine will likely outlive the rest of his car. Isn't the reason for specifically shopping for a vehicle that is known to be RELIABLE done to eliminate the headaches?

 Quote:

I will repeat: I use UOA, blotter cards, filter inspection, and the subjective signs my engines send, in order to determine whether further examination is necessary. And even then, I very well understand that there will be many things I can not determine from readily available sources of information. So, what alternative do you propose for finding those larger particles that MAY not be detected in a low cost UOA???

Without a tear-down, you really can't. And that's the point I think. I know it sort of goes in concert with the whole maintenance OCD of those of us on this site, but really, if you think about how anal retentive you are with the maintenance of your car, then think about how many people rack up (in blissful ignorance I might add) ridiculous mileage without doing ANY of those things, I think perhaps you may be able to see the other side of this..... Remember, OTR transport guys DO perform periodic tear-downs. They do them for a reason......

 

[ekpolk]

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Originally Posted By: ekpolk

No, I am not wrong on this. You are making the mistaken assumption that the value of UOA is all or nothing,

No, I think he's stating that for the use of determining engine WEAR, which a LOT of people on this site do, it is basically useless. And he would be correct in that statement.

Counter-no. He would partially correct, but partially incorrect. Inexpensive UOA are not "useless". This is not an all or nothing proposition. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but as I see it, UOA provides an indicator of wear, but not a conclusive diagnosis of what's going on. If, for example, you see grossly elevated lead, assuming it hasn't entered the system through some other means (weird additives, use of leaded fuel, etc.), you can presume that something's happening with your bearings. Might be a particle streak, might be abrasives in the oil, might be some other things. So no, not useless, but instead a very valuable clue to start looking at the issue.

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Quote:

AND you are mis-characterizing what I'm saying about UOA.

I think his statement is meant to broadly address those using $30.00 UOA's to find the "holy grail" of engine oil... Not to you specifically.

OK, I think we're perhaps saying the same thing, differently. I might have said "we" to indicate those of us who see the value, as well as the limits of the technology.

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Quote:

You are also overlooking the fact that I usually order particle counts with UOA.

You would be in the minority though. You are not the one being discussed, as your technique, since you use things like particle counts, steps outside the scope of the $30.00 UOA crowd....

True enough, I suppose. Now, if I manage to drive the Camry out of its 7/100 wty, I'll probably do occasional "lower value" UOA, with the understanding that primary purpose will be to judge whether I'm safe going to 10k OCI with my car in its usage, which is my eventual plan. In this context, I'll pay passing attention to the wear metals, looking for indications of a problem, but little more. It really is, IMO, about deciding up front to use the right UOA for the right reason.

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Quote:

I have never assumed, nor argued, that basic UOA is the be all and end all answer to what's happening in an engine. As I've already noted, you have to look at all the available information, in combination, before drawing any conclusions.

It is a good indication of contamination level, oil life depletion, and can act as a great indicator for things like coolant leaks, fuel dilution...etc.

Full agreement there.

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Not so great for monitoring what people like to call "wear metals", because they may not be from wear.

Right. It is, again, important to look at the context as well as the individual datum points. Iron is a great example. May be from abrasive wear (look next for silicon, at your intake, and where you drive...). Or maybe it's just a innocent side effect of using Mobil-1 (heaven knows where it comes from...).

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Quote:

Here's a hypo to consider: you do two UOAs, same vehicle, different oils, where virtually all the other variables remain the same, or very similar. On the first UOA, the Iron is normal. On the second, it shoots up to a much higher level. Now, off the bat, obviously this does not necessarily mean that the second oil is at fault. It could very well be other things. But nevertheless, the UOA provides the initial information that the owner can use to track down whether there is an issue, and if so, how to fix it.

This involves trending though. And the size of the spike would have to be factored into how one categorized the severity. If it was only a few PPM, then that falls into the category of noise. Since we (not you, as you do particle counts) in general are dealing with particles less than 10 microns, as the poster above noted, then exactly what ARE we looking at? Not much. Any sort of large mechanical failure is going to create particles LARGER than 10 microns, which, like in BuickGN's example, DO NOT show up in your typically Blackstone UOA. So here, you can have somebody thinking things are hunky-dory, when they are NOT, or could have somebody thinking their engine is coming apart when a pocket of deposits became uprooted, dissolved, and some <10 micron iron particles were put in suspension in the oil. This is why Doug, and OTR truckers use UOA's to monitor CONTAMINATION levels, check for coolant leaks, and watch TAN and TBN to gauge their OCI's. That is the PURPOSE of this TOOL.

What I'm saying is that this tool can be used for more than one purpose, so long as the limits are understood. Right now, I'm not monitoring for length of OCI, as for now, that's overridden by warranty concerns. On the other hand, I do want to know if my engine is giving any clues that I might want to act upon before that wty expires. But no, the UOA alone won't do that.

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Quote:

Perhaps you should consider the foolishness of condemning another poster, without having bothered to understand what that poster is saying. Please show me where I've said, ever, that I advocate relying solely upon low cost UOA results in drawing "meaningful conclusions".

But MANY on here DO. And unless you explicitly preface your posts with "I do particle counts too, and not just basic $30.00 UOA's", and refrain from citing UOA's in posts that ARE just basic UOA's and using them as EXAMPLES, like was done earlier, than you ARE enforcing that mindset. Obviously not intentionally, but without that sort of disclaimer, nobody KNOWS that you are not just doing the same thing they are.

Yes, I suppose they do. And some are quite willing to read more into the simple UOA than perhaps they should. I'm just saying that to characterize such UOA as "useless" and of no value at all is error in the other direction.

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Quote:

Beyond that, what's your alternative? Fly blind until one day, your engine fails with no warning? You attack those of us who try to make some use of UOAs, but on the other hand, you don't offer anything that's any better.

Lets flip this over: He could live contently in ignorant bliss doing regular OCI's and his engine will likely outlive the rest of his car. Isn't the reason for specifically shopping for a vehicle that is known to be RELIABLE done to eliminate the headaches?

Point is well taken. As I noted earlier in the thread, there are millions upon millions of owners who don't even know what UOA is, and never experience a serious failure. Then, OTOH, there are people like us. . .

 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

 Quote:

I will repeat: I use UOA, blotter cards, filter inspection, and the subjective signs my engines send, in order to determine whether further examination is necessary. And even then, I very well understand that there will be many things I can not determine from readily available sources of information. So, what alternative do you propose for finding those larger particles that MAY not be detected in a low cost UOA???

Without a tear-down, you really can't. And that's the point I think. I know it sort of goes in concert with the whole maintenance OCD of those of us on this site, but really, if you think about how anal retentive you are with the maintenance of your car, then think about how many people rack up (in blissful ignorance I might add) ridiculous mileage without doing ANY of those things, I think perhaps you may be able to see the other side of this..... Remember, OTR transport guys DO perform periodic tear-downs. They do them for a reason......

I do see the other side. I just get frustrated with the trend I see here of everyone polarizing on issues. All or nothing, black or white -- things in life are seldom so simple. On that last idea, I'm sure we can agree.

 

[OVERKILL]

Indeed sir, we can

 

[Hounds]

Colonel, I am very reluctant to wade in here because, frankly, I think you are now so wedded to your opinion regarding 0W-20 and 5W-20 weight oils that you are incapable of stepping back to reconsider your position. However, because you continue to argue that our roadways would be littered with dead Fords and Hondas if 20-weight oils were unfit for their intended purpose, I can only conclude you are a man who hasn't done a lot of hands-on mechanical work, much less built engines for himself or others. You simply wouldn't make that argument if you had. Engines rarely explode in a heap of twisted metal. Indeed, it amazes me how much neglect, or outright abuse, a modern, mass-produced engine can tolerate and still motor along. Case in point, forty years ago -- long before motor oils had one tenth the chemical properties of modern lubricants -- I nursed an ailing Porsche air-cooled engine to a podium finish in SCCA competition when I knew I was losing oil pressure and the main bearings were turning to junk. The subsequent teardown confirmed there wasn't a speck of babbitt left on any of the main bearing shells. Nevertheless, I'd made it at least two laps around Roebling Road, still turning mostly 5-6k rpm, with the needle of the oil pressure guage resting essentially flat on the peg and a one-inch oil-pressure light leering at me from the dash. That air/oil-cooled Super 90 engine, lovingly assembled by me, had every reason to give up the ghost, and it didn't. In comparison, modern engines (water-cooled!) live the Life of Riley. My point is simply that modern engines don't explode. Like the old soldier that Gen. MacArthur spoke of, they simply fade away, giving up a milligram of wear here and there over a period of years. It's usually the third owner who discovers the sins of the prior two. Which brings me to my second point. You're familiar with Google. I've suggested before that you do a search on "camshaft galling." That search will take you to any number of Honda gearhead websites -- no coincidence there -- all of which would convince a reasonable person (you're familiar with that concept, right?) that Honda k-series engines operate on a knife's edge of lubrication (the "boundary edge of lubrication," if you prefer) when they are run on 20-weight oil under extremes of heat and high rpm. And, as I've said before, that's why Honda recommends 5W-30 weight oil for its higher performance engines, and 10W-30 for the S2000 engine. You may continue to overlook these inconvenient facts when you mention Honda engines to bolster your arguments, but whenever you do so, please know that I and others are wondering if the trace ozone coming off your electric motors isn't getting to you.

 

[BuickGN]

 Originally Posted By: Gurney

Colonel, I am very reluctant to wade in here because, frankly, I think you are now so wedded to your opinion regarding 0W-20 and 5W-20 weight oils that you are incapable of stepping back to reconsider your position. However, because you continue to argue that our roadways would be littered with dead Fords and Hondas if 20-weight oils were unfit for their intended purpose, I can only conclude you are a man who hasn't done a lot of hands-on mechanical work, much less built engines for himself or others. You simply wouldn't make that argument if you had. Engines rarely explode in a heap of twisted metal. Indeed, it amazes me how much neglect, or outright abuse, a modern, mass-produced engine can tolerate and still motor along. Case in point, forty years ago -- long before motor oils had one tenth the chemical properties of modern lubricants -- I nursed an ailing Porsche air-cooled engine to a podium finish in SCCA competition when I knew I was losing oil pressure and the main bearings were turning to junk. The subsequent teardown confirmed there wasn't a speck of babbitt left on any of the main bearing shells. Nevertheless, I'd made it at least two laps around Roebling Road, still turning mostly 5-6k rpm, with the needle of the oil pressure guage resting essentially flat on the peg and a one-inch oil-pressure light leering at me from the dash. That air/oil-cooled Super 90 engine, lovingly assembled by me, had every reason to give up the ghost, and it didn't. In comparison, modern engines (water-cooled!) live the Life of Riley. My point is simply that modern engines don't explode. Like the old soldier that Gen. MacArthur spoke of, they simply fade away, giving up a milligram of wear here and there over a period of years. It's usually the third owner who discovers the sins of the prior two. Which brings me to my second point. You're familiar with Google. I've suggested before that you do a search on "camshaft galling." That search will take you to any number of Honda gearhead websites -- no coincidence there -- all of which would convince a reasonable person (you're familiar with that concept, right?) that Honda k-series engines operate on a knife's edge of lubrication (the "boundary edge of lubrication," if you prefer) when they are run on 20-weight oil under extremes of heat and high rpm. And, as I've said before, that's why Honda recommends 5W-30 weight oil for its higher performance engines, and 10W-30 for the S2000 engine. You may continue to overlook these inconvenient facts when you mention Honda engines to bolster your arguments, but whenever you do so, please know that I and others are wondering if the trace ozone coming off your electric motors isn't getting to you.

Sounds like you're got quite a colorful history. I'm jealous, just getting ready to go to lowly Willow Springs for the first time in a FWD barge. I wasn't sure who you were talking to at first but I assume it's not Overkill and that last comment made it apparent. I agree with your 20wt comments. That's why my glorified Honda uses a synthetic straight 30 that qualifies as a 10w-30 in my mild climate. Overkill- Glad the heavier stuff is working out for you. But remember, that reduction in noise is just your imagination and wishful thinking. Different weight oils can't change the sound of the engine...

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Will not a thinner grp-v give the same protection* as a thicker grp-iii/iv with less engine noise and less iron wear, and much improved fuel efficiency(5-7%)? Let's say a 5w-30 grp v vs. a 5/10/15w-40? Is not the high percentage grp-v base the Magic oil we all covet? * 80bHP/Litre max

 

[BuickGN]

 Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite

Will not a thinner grp-v give the same protection* as a thicker grp-iii/iv with less engine noise and less iron wear, and much improved fuel efficiency(5-7%)? Let's say a 5w-30 grp v vs. a 5/10/15w-40? Is not the high percentage grp-v base the Magic oil we all covet? * 80bHP/Litre max

I wish I knew the answer to that. With my limited knowlege I would guess a thinner grp V with the same HTHS as a thicker grp II or III would protect the same but I can't answer that one. It sounds logical though.

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: BuickGN

Overkill- Glad the heavier stuff is working out for you. But remember, that reduction in noise is just your imagination and wishful thinking. Different weight oils can't change the sound of the engine...

LOL! Indeed sir. Keep us posted on your track results with the TL, I'm interested to hear how it does.

 

[ekpolk]

 Originally Posted By: Gurney

Colonel, I am very reluctant to wade in here because, frankly, I think you are now so wedded to your opinion regarding 0W-20 and 5W-20 weight oils that you are incapable of stepping back to reconsider your position.

Awwwww, come on now -- have you not noticed that I happen to be running a fill of 12+ cSt green GC in my hybrid Camry??? If I were that "wedded" to the 20 wt dogma, why on earth would I have this syrup in my crankcase???

 Originally Posted By: Gurney

However, because you continue to argue that our roadways would be littered with dead Fords and Hondas if 20-weight oils were unfit for their intended purpose, I can only conclude you are a man who hasn't done a lot of hands-on mechanical work, much less built engines for himself or others. You simply wouldn't make that argument if you had.

Well, quite honestly, I've done a fair amount of light to medium stuff of one sort or another. Now, since you brought it up, if the 20s are NOT suitable for their spec-ed use, eight-plus years after Honda and Ford started this trend, where ARE the damaged engines??? So what secret have I missed? Either the stuff works or it does not. Were we just a year or two into this "experiment," I could hold back some, but quite simply, we're not.

 Originally Posted By: Gurney

Engines rarely explode in a heap of twisted metal. Indeed, it amazes me how much neglect, or outright abuse, a modern, mass-produced engine can tolerate and still motor along.

Absolutely true. But that is the case whether they're being fed 20, 30, 40 wt, or whatever.

 Originally Posted By: Gurney

Case in point, forty years ago -- long before motor oils had one tenth the chemical properties of modern lubricants -- I nursed an ailing Porsche air-cooled engine to a podium finish in SCCA competition when I knew I was losing oil pressure and the main bearings were turning to junk. The subsequent teardown confirmed there wasn't a speck of babbitt left on any of the main bearing shells. Nevertheless, I'd made it at least two laps around Roebling Road, still turning mostly 5-6k rpm, with the needle of the oil pressure guage resting essentially flat on the peg and a one-inch oil-pressure light leering at me from the dash.

That just hurts to think about. But it's not a case in point. It was an air-cooled Porsche being run in a race, forty years ago. I salute your ability to bring that one in for a landing -- well done. Now, as far as today is concerned, if anything, I'd conclude that viscosity is even less important that some think. If you were able to keep an air-cooled Porche running on NO oil. Just think of how much farther you could have gone if there'd been oil there -- even some watery 20 wt!

 Originally Posted By: Gurney

That air/oil-cooled Super 90 engine, lovingly assembled by me, had every reason to give up the ghost, and it didn't. In comparison, modern engines (water-cooled!) live the Life of Riley.

I agree. They are far less demanding upon their lubricants than were engines of the past. We now have clean unleaded fuel, effective PCV systems, much better metalurgy, and of course, vastly improved base oils and add packs.

 Originally Posted By: Gurney

My point is simply that modern engines don't explode. Like the old soldier that Gen. MacArthur spoke of, they simply fade away, giving up a milligram of wear here and there over a period of years. It's usually the third owner who discovers the sins of the prior two.

I didn't say I expected 20-fed engines to spontaneously grenade themselves. Nor is there any evidence that they are "fading away" any more quickly than they did on 30 wt oils. Eight years ago, all the doomsday oil folks were saying the end was upon us. Now we're pushing it back to the second or third owner?

 Originally Posted By: Gurney

Which brings me to my second point. You're familiar with Google. I've suggested before that you do a search on "camshaft galling." That search will take you to any number of Honda gearhead websites -- no coincidence there -- all of which would convince a reasonable person (you're familiar with that concept, right?) that Honda k-series engines operate on a knife's edge of lubrication (the "boundary edge of lubrication," if you prefer) when they are run on 20-weight oil under extremes of heat and high rpm. And, as I've said before, that's why Honda recommends 5W-30 weight oil for its higher performance engines, and 10W-30 for the S2000 engine. You may continue to overlook these inconvenient facts when you mention Honda engines to bolster your arguments, but whenever you do so, please know that I and others are wondering if the trace ozone coming off your electric motors isn't getting to you.

But you're overlooking the inconvenient fact that it's only specific Honda parts that are failing. If it were some flaw inherent to the 20 wt oils themselves, then it only stands to reason that we'd be seeing it across the entire Ford and Honda lines. But we're not. And then there's Toyota which back-speced most of their engines to 20 wt three years ago. No problems showing up there either. And Honda's recommendation of 30 wt oils for certain applications doesn't change the analysis. These are different engines, that are designed to be exposed to different challenges. Toyota very reasonably presumes that the owner of a hybrid Camry won't be spending much time on the track. That would not be a safe assumption for the owner of an S2000. It's not that one vis grade is "better" or "worse" than another. It's that different circumstances and priorities call for different products. Though we obviously have some disagreement here, I still thank you for taking the time to post. Wouldn't be much of a "discussion" site if we didn't discuss things. Dr. Haas, care to jump in here?

 

[ekpolk]

And I would hasten to add this little tidbit, which I have posted before. It's the main oil page in the owner's manual for the 09 Camry Hybrid. I really hate this sort of vagueness. The underlined language leaves at least four huge questions dangling (maybe more...): 1. What higher viscosity are they talking about? 2. What do they really mean by "better suited" (reduced wear, noise, evaporation, oil durability -- what??? 3. How are they defining "higher speeds"? The 80-85 I often run on the interstate, or perhaps track speeds? The Autobahn? 4. Similarly, what are "extreme load conditions"? Now Gurney, do you still think I'm "wedded" to the 20 wt dogma?

 

[Gary Allan]

I imagine that would be explained by a factory rep as, .."if you found that you were consuming oil, you can go up a grade".

 

[aquariuscsm]

 Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Similarly, what are "extreme load conditions"?

I guess if you like to drive it like ya stole it