Thin or thick (TGMO 0W-20/M1 0W-40): Final verdict

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Research by Shell indicates thinner oil results in larger MOFT at top piston rings. The reason is that thinner oil flows faster through the ring gaps.

PDF link for the Shell research article

I forgot to mention earlier ... apparently it didn't help reduce the ring wear because your chromium showed higher particle counts with the 0W-20 vs the 0W-40.

0W-40 = 2.1 ppm Cr
0W-20 = 2.6 & 5.5 ppm Cr



As I mentioned before, addition of the ACDelco cooling-system seal tabs before the M1 0W-40 fill stopped the oil thickening, which means it stopped the coolant contamination with glycol, leading to better Pb and Cr numbers. The last TGMO run had the worst oil thickening due to coolant contamination and worst Pb and Cr numbers as a result. Glycol is especially corrosive with certain metals such as Pb and Cr and it also creates explosive bubbles at the cylinders. Na, coming from a coolant additive, is another indicator of the coolant contamination. So, M1 0W-40 ran without any coolant contamination.

Next fill will be TGMO 0W-20 and coolant-contamination-free, and this should be verified.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Which is one of the main points of this thread, the other main points being the lubrication advantages for the upper end of the engine (such as the top piston ring in the article


That chart is the MOFT at mid stroke, maximum piston speed.

OTR OEMs are busy trying to develop thermal barrier coatings precisely to reduce viscosity and MOFT AT mid stroke because it's a huge waster of power.

Have you ever seen (rhetorical question I know) where cylinders and rings wear ?

(It's not mid stroke, it's at the zero speed reversal position, where boundary/mixed reigns, with maybe a bit of squeeze film).

Mid stroke MOFT tells you nothing about ring protection.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
or similarly the valvetrain as in my UOA) and fuel-economy benefits of thinner oil.


I've gone over and over and over and over that Cam lifters are additive, not viscosity dependent.

And you haven't even justified your case that half the iron is from that source.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Most modern engines, including my 85 Corolla and a BMW M3, which were "designed" for 10W-30 to 20W-50 and 10W-60, respectively, have a bearing clearance of about 0.001 in. Moreover, you didn't realize that the bottom of that graph is not 0 but 20 µin. Therefore, there isn't a huge difference between 0W-20 vs. 10W-60 -- about 25 vs. 30 µin -- each providing adequate lubrication -- assuming this graph applies to pertinent engines and RPM/torque regimes.


You've got thousands of an inch and micro inches messed up for starters.

Bearing design parameters have in the Somerfeld Calculation the ratio of radial clearance to shaft diameter (r/c) as one of the fundimental parameters....to quote (made up) clearances as the determining factor demonstrates lack of understanding.
Sommerfeld%20MOFT.jpg


Pick the L/D of 4 (for example), and see why Honda are changing their bearing sizes and clearances as they pursue thinner oils in the name of economy (their words)...i.e. change a parameter and watch what happens to MOFT.

Now have a look at Mahle's catalogue, and see why even for your engine, your recommendation might not be the best
http://www.mahle-aftermarket.com/media/local-media-north-america/pdfs/eb-10-07.pdf
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
More info on thin vs thick: http://machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils


Just a bad op-ed piece...


Care to elaborate?


He's just repeating the same clichés from the early 2000's and basically contradicts himself. "Who cares about fuel economy when everyone is buying SUV's"? I dunno, maybe the people that sold them in droves in 2008?

If thicker is better, shouldn't we just go back to 10W-40? Why is 5W-30 okay for "thicker oil people" when it too was "sewing machine oil" in from the 70's to the 90's and wasn't "recommended for sustain high speed driving" up until about 1990?
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
If thicker is better, shouldn't we just go back to 10W-40? Why is 5W-30 okay for "thicker oil people" when it too was "sewing machine oil" in from the 70's to the 90's and wasn't "recommended for sustain high speed driving" up until about 1990?


surely you've been here long enough to know when high shear viscosmetry, the nature of temporary and permanent shear were investigated, and AS A RESULT HTHS, and the various shear stability requirements were inserted in J300...and it's therefore a rhetorical question, isn't it ?

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
He's just repeating the same clichés from the early 2000's and basically contradicts himself. "Who cares about fuel economy when everyone is buying SUV's"? I dunno, maybe the people that sold them in droves in 2008?


Still LOLing about Ford's emotionally charged advertorial/TSB...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
If thicker is better, shouldn't we just go back to 10W-40? Why is 5W-30 okay for "thicker oil people" when it too was "sewing machine oil" in from the 70's to the 90's and wasn't "recommended for sustain high speed driving" up until about 1990?


surely you've been here long enough to know when high shear viscosmetry, the nature of temporary and permanent shear were investigated, and AS A RESULT HTHS, and the various shear stability requirements were inserted in J300...and it's therefore a rhetorical question, isn't it ?


Right, exactly!!

Quote:


Still LOLing about Ford's emotionally charged advertorial/TSB...


Beats your cherrypicked, outdated papers..

And the fact that you seem to think it's rather insidious that Honda admits thinner oils are at least partially for fuel economy when they've marketed themselves as one of the highest fleet fuel economy lines (and more often than not, the highest) since at least the 1970's and one of the main reasons they crushed US manufacturers in the 70's, when to buy an Accord, you had to wait for your city's consignment to come in, pay above sticker, and have every possible costly option done to the car...

I said I agree that a few UOA's don't tell the whole story, but these are starting to trend with lower, or at least on par, wear numbers with thinner oil in a reasonable, passenger car application. Seems to rather bother you..
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
I said I agree that a few UOA's don't tell the whole story, but these are starting to trend with lower, or at least on par, wear numbers with thinner oil in a reasonable, passenger car application.


I don't think anyone is arguing that xW-20 doesn't work in today's modern vehicles designed to use xW-20 with normal everyday driving conditions. However, technical information does show that a thicker oil can provide a higher level of engine protection "safety margin" (ie, thicker MOFT), and that's certainly true for applications that push oil temperatures well above the normal 200~220 F range.

Go put xW-20 in a high performance engine and go run it hard on the track every weekend for 6 months, then compare that UOA to a UOA using xW-20 in the same engine, but just driving it in normal street conditions. Or do the same track time with a thicker oil like xW-40 or xW-50 and compare UOAs to the same track time using xW-20. Of course you'd need 2 or 3 UOAs of each condition to confirm the trend. Long drawn out process for sure. Maybe Blackstone or similar has some kind of data bank of such information.

There's no doubt today's modern xW-20 oils are satisfactory for modern vehicles used in normal street driving conditions. If they weren't, you'd hear of engines wearing out way before their time. But claiming that xW-20 results in less engine wear than the thicker oils when much of the technical information out there doesn't parallel that premise makes it hard to believe. Maybe someone can go dig up an SAE paper or something that backs up the premise with real experimental data that thinner oil results in less engine wear - or on the flip side backs up that thicker results in less engine wear - or that there is no real measurable difference.
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
...

I think on main reason thicker oils are used in Europe is because the cars there are driven faster and harder in general (ie, Autobahn type use) compared to the US and Japan. Note that engine design is part of the equation on just how well a thinner oil would perform. But on the flip side, using a higher viscosity oil isn't going to hurt in everyday normal street driving. The main drawback would be more shearing friction which slightly hurts fuel economy.


They Autobahn is only in one country, although I think there are other high speed motorways elsewhere...

I was under the impression that longer drain intervals and high oil costs are the biggest reasons that Europeans tend to have thicker oils in their sumps. When oils moved to SJ and the first 5W-20's came out, a Valvoline engineer stated in an interview in a trade publication that she always recommended using thinner oils where appropriate because the base oils (in "conventionals") the 5W-XX were receiving the most R&D...

True, not all of Europe has Autobahns, just Germany, some Americans seem to think we have them in all of Europe.
 
Yes, we all know there is only one Autobahn. I said "Autobahn type use", implying high speed driving for extended periods of time.
 
So here's something to ponder. There is not one motorcycle that I know of that specifies xW-20 motor oil. Every bike I've owned (even 2016 models) or worked on specifies 10W-40 as the thinnest oil to use, and it then goes up from there to 20W-50.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
But claiming that xW-20 results in less engine wear than the thicker oils when much of the technical information out there doesn't parallel that premise makes it hard to believe.

I'm speculating there may well be such a 'proper' test comparing (gross) engine wear (inclusive of adhesion/abrasion/corrosion wear among others) between an xW20 and an xW30/40 ..........

under 'chosen and selective' operating test parameters (conducive to thinner oils and its add packs, for sure ) to tip test results towards the 'target'.........

and possibly with a 'paper' by stake holders of commercial interests (thus ruling out the likelihood of an SAE paper) ........

that is NOT peer-reviewed , to serve the (likely business) agenda of the paper proponent(s) ....in their marketing endeavours ........

by misleadingly portraying that it's solely the lower operating viscosity (and by extension lower MOFT) in an xW20 today (..and an xW16 in moons to come) vis-a-vis a thicker oil, that produces reduced (gross) engine wear .........

knowingly and intentionally hiding away from the general public and the 'learned' Bitog community the 'facts' that the two thin and thick oil samples in question may have vastly different additives packages and are of substantial difference in efficacies in engine wear mitigations ......


Quote:
Maybe someone can go dig up an SAE paper or something that backs up the premise with real experimental data that thinner oil results in less engine wear - .....

I attempted, but no luck!
sleep.gif
 
http://papers.sae.org/932782/

It's not "Fresh", but is still referenced in papers as recently as 2016 that I've found...it supports that piston rings and cam faces are immune to viscosity...(because they are predominantly additive controlled wear faces as I keep saying).

Note what the Toyota engineers admit that their drivers and concerns are in the summaries.

And apparently nobody bothered to click on the "Fresh" Honda papers...

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Couple of papers...
https://www.hondarandd.jp/e-book/16-2e/_SWF_Window.html
Cam wear was reduced in Honda's 0W20 development by the addition of Mo...but the test was the now (as of this thread) discredited sequence IVA wear test.

https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?sid=2&pid=72&did=72&lang=en
Viscosities lower than 20 were developed...surprisingly cam wear was additive dependent rather than viscosity, and as viscosity and MOFT dropped, big end wear increased, which can be stabilised by increasing bearing projected surface areas.

Interesting in both papers that they state WHAT they are trying to achieve (economy), and what they are doing to maintain the wear protection as they drop viscosity...again, OP's conclusions are flawed.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
And apparently nobody bothered to click on the "Fresh" Honda papers...

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Couple of papers...
https://www.hondarandd.jp/e-book/16-2e/_SWF_Window.html
Cam wear was reduced in Honda's 0W20 development by the addition of Mo...but the test was the now (as of this thread) discredited sequence IVA wear test.

https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?sid=2&pid=72&did=72&lang=en
Viscosities lower than 20 were developed...surprisingly cam wear was additive dependent rather than viscosity, and as viscosity and MOFT dropped, big end wear increased, which can be stabilised by increasing bearing projected surface areas.

Interesting in both papers that they state WHAT they are trying to achieve (economy), and what they are doing to maintain the wear protection as they drop viscosity...again, OP's conclusions are flawed.


Looks like you have to register and then log-in to see the papers.
 
Also interesting that a couple of players in the major oil industry are so ill informed on the facts presented in this thread...

https://passenger.lubrizoladditives360.c...ear-challenges/

Quote:
GF-6B, on the other hand, forgoes the requirement to be backwards compatible with GF-5 applications and opens the door for the development of ultra-low viscosity lubricants (i.e., SAE 16) that will push the industry into areas of formulation that have never before been encountered. These lubricants will produce significant fuel economy benefits for many engine applications, but because of their low viscosity grade, there is the potential for wear or other durability related issues.
When asked about the implications that SAE XW-16 will have on passenger car motor oil (PCMO) performance requirements, Lubrizol’s PCMO Product Manager, Jon Vilardo, said:
“While it is generally accepted that lower viscosity brings an improvement in fuel economy performance, it can have a negative impact on durability; the protective oil film is less robust, or under the most extreme loading conditions, non-existent. In terms of performance requirements, this translates to a set of standards that will ensure fuel economy is improved via lower viscosity, but durability will not be compromised. The future proposed ultra-low viscosity GF-6B specification requires the same durability performance as the proposed GF-6A. This may require enhanced fortification of specific additive components or a different formulation shape to deliver the required durability in SAE XW-16 fluids.”


https://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/jun-2014/delivering-fuel-economy?alttemplate=PDF

Quote:
Two PC-11 sub-categoriesFor the first time the PC-11 category will be split into two sub-categories. The first, PC-11A offersincreased engine protection at traditional viscosities, like SAE 15W-40, at 3.5 centiPoise (cP) HTHS(high temperature high shear) or greater. These oils will be recommended by on and off-road OEMsand will be fully backward compatible.The second, PC-11B, the so called ‘fuel economy grade', is designed to meet the evolving marketneeds for fuel economy through lower limits of HTHS (2.9 – 3.2 cP) in SAE XW-30 grades. Thedurability requirements will be the same for all grades to ensure these new fuel economy grades arerisk-free.The fuel economy grade presents a new set of challenges for engine oil formulators as they mustensure low HTHS oils still deliver the same level of engine protection as defined in current APICJ-4 engine tests and also in the upcoming PC-11 engine tests.


Why aren't these experts in the field hailing the new low viscosity lubes as being designed for "superior flow", "improved wear", with economy as a side benefit ?

Why is EVERY paper around "improving economy" (or CO2 emissions depending on the bent), while modifying lubricants to at least maintain adequate (or the same) wear ?

As an aside, it's pretty hard to find Fresh research on the gravitational constant, so citing a 1970s textbook is pretty well as relevent as going and buying one today...claiming that 1970s data is "wrong" or "outdated" because it's not fresh is plain stupid.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As an aside, it's pretty hard to find Fresh research on the gravitational constant, so citing a 1970s textbook is pretty well as relevent as going and buying one today...claiming that 1970s data is "wrong" or "outdated" because it's not fresh is plain stupid.


Nature (307, February 1984)
"A new mine determination of the newtonian gravitational constant"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v307/n5953/abs/307714a0.html


As we all know the universal gradational constant "G" has only ever been measured at either laboratory (small) scale or at astronomical (large) scale. In the 70's, 80's and 90's a push was on to measure G at the medium scale, which has never been done before.

Just saying....
 
Last edited:
What is this latest spin about? Did I name the thread "Thinnest oil is the best?" I was only comparing 0W-20 and 0W-40 in an engine with typical bearing design and sliding rocker arms.
 
Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: Shannow
As an aside, it's pretty hard to find Fresh research on the gravitational constant, so citing a 1970s textbook is pretty well as relevent as going and buying one today...claiming that 1970s data is "wrong" or "outdated" because it's not fresh is plain stupid.


Nature (307, February 1984)
"A new mine determination of the newtonian gravitational constant"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v307/n5953/abs/307714a0.html


As we all know the universal gradational constant "G" has only ever been measured at either laboratory (small) scale or at astronomical (large) scale. In the 70's, 80's and 90's a push was on to measure G at the medium scale, which has never been done before.

Just saying....


LOL, thanks.
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
If thicker is better, shouldn't we just go back to 10W-40? Why is 5W-30 okay for "thicker oil people"


5W30 is Not OK to this thick oil person, it's a thin oil to me. And yes I do like a good 10W40 thankyou very much.

My mate at work thinks I'm taking a big risk using a 40 grade. He runs M1 5W50 in every car and motorcycle he owns.

He has a Subaru for sale right now, ~ 100,000 miles, tip-top condition, and doesn't burn a drop.

Just saying ....
 
Given some of the rhetoric on BITOG, Aussies shouldn't be able to get anywhere at all...

All that "overly" thick oil, destroying engines everywhere, the roads should look like the opening scene to I am Legend (Will Smith movie)...but they don't...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top