Why are newer cars using thinner motor oils?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Apparently 120F (50C)...so if viscosity is the limiting factor, then 40cst is it...IF it was designed to be damaged on anything other than 5W20.


Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Has anyone claimed damage?I could see the system not working correctly with an oil that's too thick. It is a hydraulic system, after all. A weird idle or CEL wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility.


No one is talking about "damage" here. The system is designed to operate correctly on 5W-20 oil that meets or exceeds Chrysler Spec. MS-6395. Anything thicker interferes with proper operation of both of these systems. This is a proven fact. As far as any actual engine damage.... If it does happen, regardless of the reason why, and you have the wrong oil, (read thicker), in the engine, your warranty will be void.

And the real question to be asked here is..... Based on all of this, just what is it you think you are gaining by running thicker weight oil? Over everyone else that uses the factory recommended weight lubricant? Just what is this mystery advantage you think you are capitalizing on?
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
For example, my 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee is equipped with the 5.7 HEMI V-8. It has both MDS, (Multi Displacement System), and VVT, (Variable Valve Timing). Both require 5W-20 oil that meets or exceeds Chrysler Spec MS-6395 in order to operate properly. If you substitute a heavier weight oil, these systems won't function correctly. And you will have serious warranty issues if something gets damaged, and they can trace the failure to the wrong oil.


Rightyo, we are at one of these billt460 standoffs where you make a strawman, then flail your hands around "look over there...no-one ever said that"...

I've done this dance before. And it's annoying

So do you mean damage, or you mean that you claimed there would be no damage.

Does the MDS system work at 8cst, 12cst, 40cst, or 60cst ????

What IS the specified viscosity at 120F that makes the magic elixer work, and only that one work ?
 
And BTW, given that the OP was "why are newer cars using thinner motor oil"...are you saying that Chrysler used it to compensate for an engineering piece of dog faeces which is their MDS system ?

That's scarecley a reason to follow their lead, is it ???
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: billt460
For example, my 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee is equipped with the 5.7 HEMI V-8. It has both MDS, (Multi Displacement System), and VVT, (Variable Valve Timing). Both require 5W-20 oil that meets or exceeds Chrysler Spec MS-6395 in order to operate properly. If you substitute a heavier weight oil, these systems won't function correctly. And you will have serious warranty issues if something gets damaged, and they can trace the failure to the wrong oil.


Rightyo, we are at one of these billt460 standoffs where you make a strawman, then flail your hands around "look over there...no-one ever said that"... I've done this dance before. And it's annoying So do you mean damage, or you mean that you claimed there would be no damage. Does the MDS system work at 8cst, 12cst, 40cst, or 60cst ???? What IS the specified viscosity at 120F that makes the magic elixer work, and only that one work?

........................................................................

Originally Posted By: Shannow
"damaged"...your word.


Really? Where? When did I use the word "damage" in any of my posts? Including my first one you just quoted? I never did. So let's start off by you stop putting words in my mouth. You're the one who is dancing here. Why are you pursueing such a foolish, stupid argument in the first place? Answer the question. Just what is it you think you are gaining by using heavier oil? The whole, "engine will last longer" is total B.S. Because modern engines that use thinner weight oils are lasting longer than ever before.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
And BTW, given that the OP was "why are newer cars using thinner motor oil"...are you saying that Chrysler used it to compensate for an engineering piece of dog faeces which is their MDS system ? That's scarecley a reason to follow their lead, is it ???


I was trying to give you at least a little credit. But now you're simply talking like a fool. Game over.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: billt460
For example, my 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee is equipped with the 5.7 HEMI V-8. It has both MDS, (Multi Displacement System), and VVT, (Variable Valve Timing). Both require 5W-20 oil that meets or exceeds Chrysler Spec MS-6395 in order to operate properly. If you substitute a heavier weight oil, these systems won't function correctly. And you will have serious warranty issues if something gets damaged, and they can trace the failure to the wrong oil.


Rightyo, we are at one of these billt460 standoffs where you make a strawman, then flail your hands around "look over there...no-one ever said that"... I've done this dance before. And it's annoying So do you mean damage, or you mean that you claimed there would be no damage. Does the MDS system work at 8cst, 12cst, 40cst, or 60cst ???? What IS the specified viscosity at 120F that makes the magic elixer work, and only that one work?

........................................................................

Originally Posted By: Shannow
"damaged"...your word.


Really? Where? When did I use the word "damage" in any of my posts? Including my first one you just quoted? I never did. So let's start off by you stop putting words in my mouth. You're the one who is dancing here.

Come on ...... you said it .......... first.... in this thread.
Please own it, my dear.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4516842/Re:_Why_are_newer_cars_using_t#Post4516842

It's your prerogative to make 'statements' , however when asked to back up statements you have made with further 'clarifications' , at least acknowledge the 'query' in question (which was in response to your statements anyway)......
even though you might not be ready to provide one, in time.
 
Who is this "strawman" guy and why is he always getting denigrated?
smile.gif


In all of these debates on here about which oil viscosity, base oil, additive pack, OCI, etc. is better, there is one overarching condition that is not getting enough discussion. To sum it up: not the same conditions.

Not all engines are not engineered,designed, and built the same way
Not all fuels are the same(State to state, region to region, country to country)
Not all engines are driven in the same manner
Not all environments are the same(temperature, humidity, altitude, grades,abrasives, etc.)
Not every country/region/state has the same regulations

When someone makes a statement such as, "Just use the cheapest oil available, and change at the manufacturer's recommendation." the same to a user in Northern Manitoba and one in Malaysia, no one is being served well. If you want to not care, why come to this board? I would say most people that post on here want to do the best thing. Posters can have disagreement and even "mine is bigger" discussions, but this "one fits all" mentality is just straight ignorance.
 
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
Who is this "strawman" guy and why is he always getting denigrated?
smile.gif


In all of these debates on here about which oil viscosity, base oil, additive pack, OCI, etc. is better, there is one overarching condition that is not getting enough discussion. To sum it up: not the same conditions.

Not all engines are not engineered,designed, and built the same way
Not all fuels are the same(State to state, region to region, country to country)
Not all engines are driven in the same manner
Not all environments are the same(temperature, humidity, altitude, grades,abrasives, etc.)
Not every country/region/state has the same regulations

When someone makes a statement such as, "Just use the cheapest oil available, and change at the manufacturer's recommendation." the same to a user in Northern Manitoba and one in Malaysia, no one is being served well. If you want to not care, why come to this board? I would say most people that post on here want to do the best thing. Posters can have disagreement and even "mine is bigger" discussions, but this "one fits all" mentality is just straight ignorance.


While your argument may have been valid in years gone by, I think it is much less valid today. Years back, before synthetics were used as universally as they are today. Your argument of, "different oils for different climates, temperatures, altitudes", was more applicable. You don't see it today with the newer cars. Years back, it used to be the norm in the hotter Summer months, you ran a heavier weight oil than you did in the Winter. Gas stations would see a flurry of vehicles come in for oil changes in the Fall. All wanting a thinner grade oil with the colder Winter weather coming on.

Today that is no longer the case. Most all new cars use 0W-20 or 5W-20 regardless of the climatic conditions they are operated in. I live in Phoenix, Az. And before that 6 years in Lake Havasu City, Az. 2 of the hottest cities in the nation. 120+ in June is not uncommon. The same 5W-20 oil is recommended by the manufacturer here in June, as it is in Fargo or Minneapolis in January. I think this has as much to do with the oil itself, as it does the newer modern engines being produced today.

It took me a while to come around to using these thinner oils in such hot climates. Because I was brought up around the whole, "Thicker oil provides a better protective lubrication barrier, in high operating temperatures", nonsense. It is not uncommon around here to see cars with 200,000+ miles on them. That have seen nothing but 0W-20 or 5W-20 oil in them their entire operating life. All are operating just fine, and pass hydrocarbon emission standards without any issues. If thinner oils caused all of this supposed wear, you would see evidence of it. I'm seeing just the opposite. Newer engines running much thinner oils. And lasting much longer in the process.
 
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
I would say most people that post on here want to do the best thing.


If that's the case, then how is using the proper oil the manufacturer recommends, (which in most cases is either 0W-20 or 5W-20), not, "the best thing"?
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
I would say most people that post on here want to do the best thing.


If that's the case, then how is using the proper oil the manufacturer recommends, (which in most cases is either 0W-20 or 5W-20), not, "the best thing"?

Obviously, you didn't see the first part of the post.
Chances are, the manufacturer recommendation will work for a lot applications. To think that it will cover all circumstances is the ignorance part.
If you keep a vehicle for 75,000 miles and get rid of it?. You will probably never feel the affects of such ignorance. There's probably a decent chance if you keep it for 200,000 miles the same applies.
There used to be something called "best engineering practice" which you don't hear much anymore. Now it is about the bottom line.
By the way, I am not advocating thin or thick. My statement actually applies somewhat to both sides.
I think we were in a period of automotive engine development for about twenty years where the manufacturers were able to optimize engine designs for durability, because CAFE and EPA standards were changing slowly, and we kind of got spoiled, able to stretch our oil changes, and not worry about what type of oil so much. With these fast changing regs, and this doesn't just apply to the automotive world, durability is starting to take a hit. We have a lot of high strung little engines coming out that we are going to have to start paying a little more attention to. At least until the manufacturers get a handle on it. But with CAFE going up so high, that may be a while.

However, that still doesn't change what I said. This is a actually a scientific principle. If you can not standardize conditions, how can you prescribe only one form of action?
 
Last edited:
And seeing as we seem to be so hung up on "damage" around here. Is anyone really arguing that if your vehicle IS subjected to any type of engine damage. And the dealer finds the wrong oil in the crankcase. Does anyone actually believe they'll still honor the warranty? And if it's true that the only reason manufacturers are recommending thinner oils, is for improved mileage figures. Why is it the newer engines are lasting so long?

Correct me if I'm wrong here. If the manufacturers are supposedly trading off accelerated wear, by mandating thinner oils for better fuel economy numbers. Why aren't we seeing a sudden rash of engine failures just past the warranty? Or at least these same engines consuming oil, and delivering much higher emissions from doing so? Why are there so many modern vehicles running around with 200,000+ miles on the clock, that have been running nothing but these manufacturer recommended thinner oils? And all the while delivering satisfactory performance in the process? From the Mojave Desert in June, to Duluth in January. And once again I'll ask the $64,000 question. What is to be gained by going against these manufacturer recommended, thinner weight oils? And in the process substuting a thicker, higher viscosity oil, that will automatically void your engine warranty? Where is the hidden reward vs. this guaranteed risk?

Here is the way I'm seeing this deal. You will void your engine warranty once you deviate from the manufacturer recommended viscosity oil. And, again correct me if I'm wrong, the sole reason for doing this is to improve engine life, on an engine that will already last longer than anything produced before it, that ran on heavier weight oil. You can call me blind. But where is this payoff I'm not seeing???
 
Read any of their papers.

The push for thinner oils is to improve fuel economy (or CO2 emissions if that's the bent of your govt)..."while maintaining acceptable engine life"...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Read any of their papers. The push for thinner oils is to improve fuel economy (or CO2 emissions if that's the bent of your govt)..."while maintaining acceptable engine life"...


I don't doubt that. And I agree that may very well be one of the reasons manufacturers are using them. I'm just not seeing where substituting a heavier weight oil is going to improve on engine longevity. These engines, along with the thinner weight oils that are recommended to be run in them, have been around long enough. If there was some enhanced longevity to be achieved by running a heavier weight oil in them, there would be articles galore proving it. There isn't. Just the same old theory that, "thicker is better", when it comes to enhanced wear resistance. Yet in spite of that constantly being preached, we have no direct evidence of it in these modern engines. While there is evidence everywhere that newer modern engines, running thinner weight synthetic oils, are lasting longer than ever before.
 
Correlation and causation...

Yes, engines are lasting longer than before...improvements in design, metallurgy, and tolerances...improvements in fuel management and spark management, erduced deposits etc.

You can't say that the improvements in life are CAUSED by lowering viscosity...any rudimentary understanding of hydrodynamics and physics clearly points that thinner is NOT causing the increases we see in reliable life.

Here's Honda's take...

Quote:
Suppression of global warming and other recent issues are increasing demands for enhanced automobile fuel economy to reduce CO2 emissions. Lowering the engine oil viscosity is known to be an effective method of enhancing fuel economy(1), (2). However, lowering the viscosity by too much has the opposite effect of reducing fuel economy for some engine mechanisms(3), (4). In addition, there are concerns that simply lowering the engine oil viscosity may result in increased wear at high temperature, lower operating performance of hydraulic devices, and increased oil consumption(5


Note that they are also concerned at operation of hydraulics (like VVT etc.) with increasingly lower oil viscosities.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
You can't say that the improvements in life are CAUSED by lowering viscosity...any rudimentary understanding of hydrodynamics and physics clearly points that thinner is NOT causing the increases we see in reliable life.


Understood. And I'm not saying, or suggesting that. What I am saying is going to an increased viscosity oil in these newer engines would not improve a thing. It would just cause issues. VVT and MDS have proven to have issues with higher weight oils. They are designed to operate on a very specific weight of motor oil. And as I mentioned, engine warranties are voided by using an out of spec viscosity oil. So in a nutshell, the use of heavy weight oils are off the table with all of these new engines.

For well over 4 decades 10W-40 oil, be it dinosaur or synthetic, was the mainstay in the American automotive crankcase. It is no longer. Today it's all 5W-20, or 0W-20 depending on the manufacturer. Regardless of climate or temperature. And engines are lasting a lot longer. That may be because of closer tolerance manufacturing. Or better metallurgy and materials. Another factor is consistency in machining with these newer multi million dollar computerized machining centers. If you look at the way engines were manufactured 50 years ago, and compare it to today, it's like revisiting the stone age.

All of this is creating longer lasting engines. The point being heavy weight oils are yesterdays news in regards to todays engines. And have no place in them. They improve nothing, and in fact cause a multitude of issues if one were to substitute them. Heavy weight motor oils in todays cars has gone the way of the incandescent light bulb. A best forgotten memory. Nothing more.
 
"Correlation and causation..."
Thank you.

It is absolutely apparent from the number of links I found, that the only reason the thin oils exist is for U.S. fuel economy standards. Considering Ford has applied for GHG credits from the EPA, for among other things, active seat ventilation, and the incredibly high CAFE standards of 2025, the makers are scrambling for anything.

I have not found the link for this yet, but I am trying to connect OLM's to EPA or CARB. I have found some EPA papers on the amount of oil going to waste and that they would like to extend oil changes. I have a hypotheses that the manufacturers are getting some kind of credit for the OLM's. We shall see.
 
Another upcoming policy-driven initiative/directive on minimum 10K mile OCI lubricant oils ..... from the State, other than CAFE!
Welcome on the next phase of debates (albeit, emotional at times ) on Bitog on :
10K OCI ve 7.5K OCI !
laugh.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
Majestic 20w50 anyone used it?
Replies
1
Views
421
fantastic
B
Oil usage in newer cars
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Propflux01
F
7.3 powerstroke conventional oil to synthetic?
Replies
13
Views
817
fantastic
T
22 and newer Nissan Frontiers
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Lavrishevo
PeteRoy
Lacquer Thinner to clean converter for BMW M5 V10
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
SHOZ
Back
Top