In engine oil lubrication, corrosion wear (chemistry) matters and adhesion/abrasion wear (physics) doesn't matter , in relative terms.
Modern day manufacturing methodology , materials technology and engine designs has shifted engine lubrication regimes on the Stribeck curve to the right towards EHD/Hydrodynamic lubrication regimes, well away from boundary and mixed lubrication regimes , hence further propensity for reducing adhesion/abrasion wear.
In relation to thicker engine oil, physics shows a thinner MOFT in thinner oil (of similar additive package) can never produce lesser adhesion/abrasion wear , as is often touted on this board......... being confused with 'wear' per se.
But a specific modern day additive package (chemistry) having relatively extra-ordinary efficacy in reducing corrosion engine wear, and to a lesser extent its AW efficacy in reducing adhesion/abrasion engine wear (in boundary lubrication regimes) ..........
can drastically change the overall engine wear pattern and proportions.......
vis-a-vis a weaker additive package , never mind its physics in MOFT.
The same is not true in gear oil lubrication system, and probably a hydraulic system exhibiting insignificant and minimal corrosion wear phenomenon.
Edited by zeng (10/03/17 09:05 PM)