New To BMW and Synthetics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Bluestream


Maybe you should read the oil article by Dr. Hass. He runs 0W20 in his Ferrari Maranello without issue.


He also:

A) short trips the car
B) does NOT beat on it
C) has the money to replace the engine if he nukes it.

Since I do NOT have a spare $20,000 kicking around to replace the engine in my M5, I'm certainly one of the people not willing to experiment with viscosity choices much thinner than specified by the OEM. Particularly given that nothing of detriment is happening by running the 0w-40 year round. And fuel consumption, given how I drive the thing, well, my right foot has a far greater impact on the amount of gas I go through than the grade of oil in the pan.

Correction. Ali has never run a 0W-20 grade per se in his Enzo, it's the RLI 0W-30 that he uses and with a HTHSV in the 3.6-3.8cP range it's operational viscosity is on par with M1 0W-40. An early version of RLI 0W-30 did produce a UOA with a KV100 of about 8cSt with fuel dilution so I guess you could say he did run 0W-20 but that's a stretch IMO.

He of course has oil gauges and his maximum oil temp's don't get above 82C, so regardless of how hard he does or doesn't drive the car he certainly is not taking any changes or "experimenting" he is simply optimizing the operational viscosity in the engine.
It makes a whole lot more sense to run the oil he is running with the way he operates the Enzo than the spec' 10W-60.

In his wife's Lambo' he is running Motorcraft syn-blend 5W-20 (HTHSV 2.65cP) at present. No argument here that he is using a true 20 grade OTC oil. If I'm not mistaken the Audi V8 in this car is spec'd for a A3/B4 5W-30 and 5W-40. Maximum oil temp's have reached 226F and the oil test spec's have been tested apparently but it is still just a street driven car.
One could consider this something of an "experiment" but only due to a lack of info on what the maximum permissible oil temp's would be on the spec' oil or minimum OP. If for the sake of argument it was 300F on a 3.6-3.8cP oil then a 2.65cP oil should be fine up to about 265F and that would be under maximum load conditions.

Ali will be posting a UOA of the Motorcraft oil from the Lambo' in due course. I'm sure it will be good.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

He of course has oil gauges and his maximum oil temp's don't get above 82C, so regardless of how hard he does or doesn't drive the car he certainly is not taking any changes or "experimenting" he is simply optimizing the operational viscosity in the engine.
It makes a whole lot more sense to run the oil he is running with the way he operates the Enzo than the spec' 10W-60.


thumbsup2.gif
Given those operating parameters, that setup makes perfect sense. Glad you were able to shed some additional light on it. Though technically it is still experimenting, as he's running a non-spec lubricant, even if it is still not a huge step down in operational viscosity.

Kind of reminds me of the pre 03/00 M5 guys running M1 0w-40, GC...etc. Technically, those engines were never back-spec'd for the LL-01 oils, they still spec 10w-60. But of course the post 03/00 cars DID get spec'd for LL-01, so while technically an "experiment" as they are running a non-spec lube, it is one done with knowledge of what is essentially the exact same engine calling for the lighter oil with nothing more than a piston ring change.

Quote:
In his wife's Lambo' he is running Motorcraft syn-blend 5W-20 (HTHSV 2.65cP) at present. No argument here that he is using a true 20 grade OTC oil. If I'm not mistaken the Audi V8 in this car is spec'd for a A3/B4 5W-30 and 5W-40. Maximum oil temp's have reached 226F and the oil test spec's have been tested apparently but it is still just a street driven car.
One could consider this something of an "experiment" but only due to a lack of info on what the maximum permissible oil temp's would be on the spec' oil or minimum OP. If for the sake of argument it was 300F on a 3.6-3.8cP oil then a 2.65cP oil should be fine up to about 265F and that would be under maximum load conditions.

Ali will be posting a UOA of the Motorcraft oil from the Lambo' in due course. I'm sure it will be good.


Quite interested to see that, also sounds like oil temps are reasonably well controlled in that application as well. It isn't an experiment I'd do but I do applaud him for his effort. He can afford to do these things and is doing them for the sake of science/experimentation.
 
Was reading the article here on viscosity ,and gees the chart they supplied is an eye opener.a 0w40 or the one step down 5w30 if i aint mistaken have a diff of .3 (sae)2.9 for 0w40 and 2.6 for the 5w30 so basicly they re very close at 150 degree.true an oil maker would benefit huge cred by having it as close to the 100 f value as the hths article (from here but for some reason i cant find on this site.)the higher the hths the better (as close to the 100 as possible the article seems to mean.sadly those hths value were likely the max .
 
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Was reading the article here on viscosity ,and gees the chart they supplied is an eye opener.a 0w40 or the one step down 5w30 if i aint mistaken have a diff of .3 (sae)2.9 for 0w40 and 2.6 for the 5w30 so basicly they re very close at 150 degree.true an oil maker would benefit huge cred by having it as close to the 100 f value as the hths article (from here but for some reason i cant find on this site.)the higher the hths the better (as close to the 100 as possible the article seems to mean


Depends on the purpose of the lubes. GF-5 5w-30 are around 3.0cp for HTHS, the "euro oils" like M1 0w-40, GC 0w-30, BMW 5w-30...etc all have an HTHS >=3.5cP. M1 0w-40 is 3.8cP IIRC.

The ACEA specs that these oils meet (except the BMW 5w-30, which doesn't officially carry the ACEA spec) calls for a minimum HTHS of 3.5cP.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Was reading the article here on viscosity ,and gees the chart they supplied is an eye opener.a 0w40 or the one step down 5w30 if i aint mistaken have a diff of .3 (sae)2.9 for 0w40 and 2.6 for the 5w30 so basicly they re very close at 150 degree.true an oil maker would benefit huge cred by having it as close to the 100 f value as the hths article (from here but for some reason i cant find on this site.)the higher the hths the better (as close to the 100 as possible the article seems to mean


Depends on the purpose of the lubes. GF-5 5w-30 are around 3.0cp for HTHS, the "euro oils" like M1 0w-40, GC 0w-30, BMW 5w-30...etc all have an HTHS >=3.5cP. M1 0w-40 is 3.8cP IIRC.

The ACEA specs that these oils meet (except the BMW 5w-30, which doesn't officially carry the ACEA spec) calls for a minimum HTHS of 3.5cP.
are big rig oil (like cj-4 or acea 9 stuck with low hths value also ?
 
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Was reading the article here on viscosity ,and gees the chart they supplied is an eye opener.a 0w40 or the one step down 5w30 if i aint mistaken have a diff of .3 (sae)2.9 for 0w40 and 2.6 for the 5w30 so basicly they re very close at 150 degree.true an oil maker would benefit huge cred by having it as close to the 100 f value as the hths article (from here but for some reason i cant find on this site.)the higher the hths the better (as close to the 100 as possible the article seems to mean


Depends on the purpose of the lubes. GF-5 5w-30 are around 3.0cp for HTHS, the "euro oils" like M1 0w-40, GC 0w-30, BMW 5w-30...etc all have an HTHS >=3.5cP. M1 0w-40 is 3.8cP IIRC.

The ACEA specs that these oils meet (except the BMW 5w-30, which doesn't officially carry the ACEA spec) calls for a minimum HTHS of 3.5cP.
are big rig oil (like cj-4 or acea 9 stuck with low hths value also ?


No, only the energy conserving oils have the lower HTHS values (this is easily gleaned by just looking at the spec sheets of the oils you are thinking about). Most HDEO's have even higher HTHS's:

Mobil 1 Turbo Diesel Truck:
http://www.mobil.com/Canada-English/Lubes/PDS/IOCAENPVLMOMobil1_Turbo_Diesel_Truck_5W-40.aspx

HTHS of 3.8cP (same as M1 0w-40).

Mobil Delvac 1300 15w-40:
http://www.mobil.com/Canada-English/Lubes/PDS/IOCAENCVLMOMobil_Delvac_1300_Super.aspx

HTHS of 4.3cp
 
So technicly a customer could buy say a:valvoline synpower 0w20 with a hths of 8.9(or similar to what the 100 f value is?but it wouldnt be sn/energy conserving,it would be SN
 
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
So technicly a customer could buy say a:valvoline synpower 0w20 with a hths of 8.9(or similar to what the 100 f value is?but it wouldnt be sn/energy conserving,it would be SN


The HTHS of synpower 0w-20 is like 2.6cP. You are looking at the visc at 100C figure.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
So technicly a customer could buy say a:valvoline synpower 0w20 with a hths of 8.9(or similar to what the 100 f value is?but it wouldnt be sn/energy conserving,it would be SN


The HTHS of synpower 0w-20 is like 2.6cP. You are looking at the visc at 100C figure.
humor me please (in theory if it was made it would be a sn oil but not energy conserving right?)
 
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
So technicly a customer could buy say a:valvoline synpower 0w20 with a hths of 8.9(or similar to what the 100 f value is?but it wouldnt be sn/energy conserving,it would be SN


The HTHS of synpower 0w-20 is like 2.6cP. You are looking at the visc at 100C figure.
humor me please (in theory if it was made it would be a sn oil but not energy conserving right?)


Visc @ 100 is completely different than the HTHS visc, which is measured under high temp/high shear conditions. They are completely different measures. You cannot make a 0w-20 with an HTHS of 8.9, heck the HTHS of Redline's 10w-60 is "only" 5.8cP:

http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=130&pcid=21
 
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Was reading the article here on viscosity ,and gees the chart they supplied is an eye opener.a 0w40 or the one step down 5w30 if i aint mistaken have a diff of .3 (sae)2.9 for 0w40 and 2.6 for the 5w30 so basicly they re very close at 150 degree.true an oil maker would benefit huge cred by having it as close to the 100 f value as the hths article (from here but for some reason i cant find on this site.)the higher the hths the better (as close to the 100 as possible the article seems to mean.sadly those hths value were likely the max .

Read a newer version of SAE J300. Those numbers you have are obsolete. 3.5 is the minimum HTHS for 0w-40, 5w-40, and 10w-40, with 3.7 the minimum for 15w-40, 20w-40, 25w-40, and SAE 40. Your older numbers are one reason why 10w-40 wasn't specified for as high temperatures as was 15w-40 in these German cars.

Also, read CJ-4 and the relevant ACEA E specifications. You're not going to find an HDEO meeting any of those specifications with an HTHS of under 3.5.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: riggaz
At -30 the wind chill on his diff and sump @ 70mph will be very, very bad

Based on what I've read before, machines do not feel wind chill. Wind chill is a term invented by meteorologist in relation to how human skin/body perceives a combination of temperature and wind.

I haven't read all the way to the end, but wind chill is not a "perception". It's basic thermodynamics. The more air that moves over a body, the greater the heat transfer. Wind chill does not mean that the temperature is colder than the thermometer. It means the rate of cooling is "as if" the thermometer is at the wind chill temperature. This is why frostbite is more likely in windy conditions or when doing activities like snowmobiling in very cold temperatures. Frostbite is not a "perception", it's a very real condition. If you've ever gone skiing or snowmobiling in cold conditions (e.g., -30 or colder), you would know this.
 
Last edited:
bimmerdriver, it's not the volume of air passing something, it's the fact that we are wet sacks of meat, and water evaporates from our surface, extracting heat in addition to that moved away via convection.

If a machine is moving through the air at a dry bulb temperature of -30F, then the coldest that it can become is -30F, no matter how much air flows over it.

A wet sack of meat (or burlap bag, or washing on a clothes line) can go much lower than the dry bulb temperature as moisture evaporates from the surface...in low humidity, the wet bulb can be a LOT lower than the dry...that's what we perceive as wind chill...it's real, but machines (unless designed with evaporative cooling) don't feel it.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
bimmerdriver, it's not the volume of air passing something, it's the fact that we are wet sacks of meat, and water evaporates from our surface, extracting heat in addition to that moved away via convection.

If a machine is moving through the air at a dry bulb temperature of -30F, then the coldest that it can become is -30F, no matter how much air flows over it.

A wet sack of meat (or burlap bag, or washing on a clothes line) can go much lower than the dry bulb temperature as moisture evaporates from the surface...in low humidity, the wet bulb can be a LOT lower than the dry...that's what we perceive as wind chill...it's real, but machines (unless designed with evaporative cooling) don't feel it.

Read what I said. The wind chill temperature is not colder than the thermometer, but the rate of cooling down to that temperature is more rapid than it would be with no wind chill. If you heat an object and let it cool in still air, it will take longer to cool than if the air is moving. Do you think blowing on food to cool it off is just a placebo? The effect you are talking about is not the same as wind chill.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bimmerdriver
Originally Posted By: Shannow
bimmerdriver, it's not the volume of air passing something, it's the fact that we are wet sacks of meat, and water evaporates from our surface, extracting heat in addition to that moved away via convection.

If a machine is moving through the air at a dry bulb temperature of -30F, then the coldest that it can become is -30F, no matter how much air flows over it.

A wet sack of meat (or burlap bag, or washing on a clothes line) can go much lower than the dry bulb temperature as moisture evaporates from the surface...in low humidity, the wet bulb can be a LOT lower than the dry...that's what we perceive as wind chill...it's real, but machines (unless designed with evaporative cooling) don't feel it.

Read what I said. The wind chill temperature is not colder than the thermometer, but the rate of cooling down to that temperature is more rapid than it would be with no wind chill. If you heat an object and let it cool in still air, it will take longer to cool than if the air is moving. Do you think blowing on food to cool it off is just a placebo? The effect you are talking about is not the same as wind chill.


Wind chill is referenced as a temperature colder than ambient though. That's why the weather network lists both, ie, it is -25, -34 with the wind chill. It isn't just the increase in heat loss but also the body's attempt to try and deal with the heat loss which ultimately just results in more heat loss, exasperating the problem.

So while the rate of cooling increase is a real phenomenon, the referenced "wind chill" temperature is still always listed as "perceived".

I think this aligns somewhat with what you were saying.
 
If the statement is that convective heat transfer increases with the speed of the wind over it, then it's perfectly correct...except that's NOT chill.

Car doesn't care whether it's moving or it's wind, but a diff filled with water at running through an ambient of zero C is not going to freeze, regardless of how fast it's going...a person, animal, or the fork full of wet food will experience another, latent heat effect.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: bimmerdriver
Originally Posted By: Shannow
bimmerdriver, it's not the volume of air passing something, it's the fact that we are wet sacks of meat, and water evaporates from our surface, extracting heat in addition to that moved away via convection.

If a machine is moving through the air at a dry bulb temperature of -30F, then the coldest that it can become is -30F, no matter how much air flows over it.

A wet sack of meat (or burlap bag, or washing on a clothes line) can go much lower than the dry bulb temperature as moisture evaporates from the surface...in low humidity, the wet bulb can be a LOT lower than the dry...that's what we perceive as wind chill...it's real, but machines (unless designed with evaporative cooling) don't feel it.

Read what I said. The wind chill temperature is not colder than the thermometer, but the rate of cooling down to that temperature is more rapid than it would be with no wind chill. If you heat an object and let it cool in still air, it will take longer to cool than if the air is moving. Do you think blowing on food to cool it off is just a placebo? The effect you are talking about is not the same as wind chill.


Wind chill is referenced as a temperature colder than ambient though. That's why the weather network lists both, ie, it is -25, -34 with the wind chill. It isn't just the increase in heat loss but also the body's attempt to try and deal with the heat loss which ultimately just results in more heat loss, exasperating the problem.

So while the rate of cooling increase is a real phenomenon, the referenced "wind chill" temperature is still always listed as "perceived".

I think this aligns somewhat with what you were saying.

For what it's worth, according to Wikipedia, "Wind-chill or windchill, (popularly wind chill factor) is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the body on exposed skin due to the flow of air." This has nothing to do with latent heat due to evaporation of moisture. It also has nothing to do with heat index or humidex, which is the perceived difference in temperature due to the humidity.
 
Originally Posted By: bimmerdriver
For what it's worth, according to Wikipedia, "Wind-chill or windchill, (popularly wind chill factor) is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the body on exposed skin due to the flow of air."

OK, so what was wrong with the statement I made earlier?

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Wind chill is a term invented by meteorologist in relation to how human skin/body perceives a combination of temperature and wind.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: bimmerdriver
For what it's worth, according to Wikipedia, "Wind-chill or windchill, (popularly wind chill factor) is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the body on exposed skin due to the flow of air."

OK, so what was wrong with the statement I made earlier?

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Wind chill is a term invented by meteorologist in relation to how human skin/body perceives a combination of temperature and wind.


If you're asking whether it's correct to state that wind-chill only applies to humans, then you're incorrect. Wind-chill applies to any object. It is not caused by latent heat of evaporation. That is a completely different physical effect. It's also different from heat-index, which is related to humidity.

Here is the explanation of wind-chill from Wikipedia:

A solid surface loses heat through evaporation, conduction, and radiation.[1] The rate of conduction depends on the difference in temperature between the surface and its surroundings. As conduction from a warm surface heats the air around it, an insulating boundary layer of warm air forms against the surface. Moving air disrupts this boundary layer, or epiclimate, allowing for cooler air to replace the warm air against the surface. The faster the wind speed, the more readily the surface cools.

The effect of wind chill is to increase the rate of heat loss and reduce any warmer objects to the ambient temperature more quickly. It cannot, however, reduce the temperature of these objects below the ambient temperature, no matter how great the wind velocity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top