5W/10W-30 instead of 5W-20 in Ford 4.6L

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
yet we know some oils produce less wear than others.



The only time that is true if "A" oil meets different specs than "B" oil.


Lol. So you're saying that every oil under one spec produces the exact same amount of wear? Not buying it. Obviously different oils are....well....different.....and they perform differently.

I'm still amazed we have a whole site that bases an oils worth on wear metals from a $20 UOA. The wear metals potion of the test is so flawed for anything other than trending using the same oil many times before swapping that I ignore it. It can't see the larger particles which many say are the result of accelerated wear and of more importance. It picks up just a portion of the wear metals in the oil where oxidation will show up as wear. I wonder how many oils with better than average cleaning ability have been condemned by this test.

In my opinion only a particle count is a valid form of analyzing wear metals especially if you're using a different oil every OCI. Otherwise you need to get some tear downs under your belt before making claims that every oil meeting a certain spec will produce the same wear results.



If you use a oil with blended in different batches the wear rate will be different. One of the acceptable methods to ensure the quality of the lubricant used and a benchmark used to ensure wear rates are below a acceptable range is manufacture specification.

Do you understand?

Another concept that may be hard to understand is that no blender can state that it provides the "best" in wear protection because it can not be measured or quantified. I have a feeling that is to much to fathom in your case.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
Otherwise you need to get some tear downs under your belt before making claims that every oil meeting a certain spec will produce the same wear results.

Alternatively, you'll have to do the same to claim that Oil A SN/GF-5 results in less wear than Oil B SN/GF-5. Right?

Additionally, it will have to be done with a statistically correct sample size with other variables removed. We'll also have to see if the results hold true with other engine families.

That sounds like a pretty involved process. Maybe that's why there are specifications in the first place.

 

[AcuraTL]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
yet we know some oils produce less wear than others.



The only time that is true if "A" oil meets different specs than "B" oil.


Lol. So you're saying that every oil under one spec produces the exact same amount of wear? Not buying it. Obviously different oils are....well....different.....and they perform differently.

I'm still amazed we have a whole site that bases an oils worth on wear metals from a $20 UOA. The wear metals potion of the test is so flawed for anything other than trending using the same oil many times before swapping that I ignore it. It can't see the larger particles which many say are the result of accelerated wear and of more importance. It picks up just a portion of the wear metals in the oil where oxidation will show up as wear. I wonder how many oils with better than average cleaning ability have been condemned by this test.

In my opinion only a particle count is a valid form of analyzing wear metals especially if you're using a different oil every OCI. Otherwise you need to get some tear downs under your belt before making claims that every oil meeting a certain spec will produce the same wear results.



If you use a oil with blended in different batches the wear rate will be different. One of the acceptable methods to ensure the quality of the lubricant used and a benchmark used to ensure wear rates are below a acceptable range is manufacture specification.

Do you understand?

Another concept that may be hard to understand is that no blender can state that it provides the "best" in wear protection because it can not be measured or quantified. I have a feeling that is to much to fathom in your case.


You may want to re- read your own statement. Either you forgot what you said or you're attempting to back track and using aggression to cover it up. You said an oil only shows a different wear rate if it meets a different spec. That's saying every oil meeting the same spec will produce the same wear numbers. Now you're talking about wear rates being in the same range. How large is this range? However large it's a lot different than saying oils of the same spec produce the exact same wear rates. So which one of your statements are you going to stick with? Obviously both can not be true.

Wear can very much be measured and all oils do not produce the exact same wear results so there is a best oil for a particular engine operated under its particular conditions. A manufacturer will usually not state theirs is the best because it's going in many different engines operated in vastly different environments and conditions and there is no best oil for every engine and condition.

 

[AcuraTL]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
Otherwise you need to get some tear downs under your belt before making claims that every oil meeting a certain spec will produce the same wear results.

Alternatively, you'll have to do the same to claim that Oil A SN/GF-5 results in less wear than Oil B SN/GF-5. Right?

Additionally, it will have to be done with a statistically correct sample size with other variables removed. We'll also have to see if the results hold true with other engine families.

That sounds like a pretty involved process. Maybe that's why there are specifications in the first place.

With that said, do you believe all oils that meet the same spec will have the exact same wear rate? I'm not interested in proving one spec better or worse than another. I'm interested in which oil is going to give my daily driver the lowest wear and the longest life in the conditions it's operated in and that's pretty easy to do with particle counts and UOAs. The trending I've seen goes against what most want to hear on this board but there's a reason I run a 5w-30 and sometimes a 5w-40 in the summer in my TL. I'm not interested in an oil that's catalytic converter friendly, I want the longest engine life. Interestingly enough I've used an oil with high levels of ZDDP since it's first oil change at 3,000 miles and the converters and 02s are still fine well past 100k. It just passed emissions with zero hydrocarbons. I look forward to tearing it down one day since it's been run on the same brand of oil for just about all of its life even if it is just a very small sample size lol.

 

[dave1251]

It is simple why I am using "aggression". There is no way any blender can say that their oil produces the best in wear protection. The best statement that can be made is no other oil exceeds brand "X" in wear protection. I am sorry but I have witnessed far too many teardown's with just about every brand name of oil used and many of hundreds of thousands of miles of engine use to say any PCMO protects better than an another.

I have a follow up question for you what is the purpose of a particle count on UOA?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
With that said, do you believe all oils that meet the same spec will have the exact same wear rate?

Belief is irrelevant. The exact same wear rate is a loaded phrase, too, since that's technically impossible. I would, however, suggest that it is virtually impossible to tell one oil that meets the specification from another that meets it as well, in terms of engine wear and longevity.

Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
I'm interested in which oil is going to give my daily driver the lowest wear and the longest life in the conditions it's operated in and that's pretty easy to do with particle counts and UOAs.

Those only give you an indirect view of wear, and that is not an accepted way of comparing lube to lube. Tear downs provide direct, reliable measurements of wear. UOAs do not.

Truth be told, you'll get more life out of an engine than you'll ever want just by following the manufacturer's recommendations and buying by price within specifications. I've never had to junk a vehicle because of engine wear, and in fleet use, we doubled the OCI and stuck with conventional of the specified grade.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4

What were the numbers with 5W-20 versus those with 10W-30? Have any UOAs that you can share? I live the same climate but I am somewhat skeptical I would see my wear metals drop 50-67% by switching to 10W-30. However, seeing my 15K run with 14PPM drop to 5-7PPM would be nice. 0W-20 is $24 at WM, a six pack of M1 at Costco is above $30 at my local store so the price is the same or less at WM. What did you score yours for?


I use Avlabs most often. I'll have to see if I can dig up some old UOA results from '98 and later. My account does not display results that far back.

Costco sends out sales fliers. I stock up. Often $6-10/off.

 

[AcuraTL]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
With that said, do you believe all oils that meet the same spec will have the exact same wear rate?

Belief is irrelevant. The exact same wear rate is a loaded phrase, too, since that's technically impossible. I would, however, suggest that it is virtually impossible to tell one oil that meets the specification from another that meets it as well, in terms of engine wear and longevity.

Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
I'm interested in which oil is going to give my daily driver the lowest wear and the longest life in the conditions it's operated in and that's pretty easy to do with particle counts and UOAs.

Those only give you an indirect view of wear, and that is not an accepted way of comparing lube to lube. Tear downs provide direct, reliable measurements of wear. UOAs do not.

Truth be told, you'll get more life out of an engine than you'll ever want just by following the manufacturer's recommendations and buying by price within specifications. I've never had to junk a vehicle because of engine wear, and in fleet use, we doubled the OCI and stuck with conventional of the specified grade.


I agree 100% that tear downs are the best way for determining wear by a long shot but we have to make due with what we have. Trust me, if I had the time and the money I would love to do regular teardowns but that's not practical. Particle counts are better than what the vast majority use in a $20 UOA. I believe people put waaaaay too much weight on the wear metals in these tests. Unless I see a HUGE jump in metals I ignore that section completely. I'm surprised the vast majority accept that those tests particularly the wear metals are a valid way to determine which oil is better when it's so incredibly flawed.

You're right that the vehicle will likely be junked for reasons other than a worn engine just by following the manufacturers recommendation but what fun would that be. We're all here because we all have some form of OCD when it comes to oil. I can't wait to tear mine down one day because it's the only car I've owned that's run the same brand and almost the same weight for its entire life. I'll likely be buying a new car soon and this one might become my commuter. The goal is at least 300,000 miles and I don't want it to just make it to 300k, I want it to be in excellent shape with very little wear, getting good mpg and making the same power it made when new when it gets there. That's my justification for running an expensive oil and filter and changing it every 5,000 miles anyway.

 

[Garak]

I agree that UOAs are used incorrectly, and that happens regularly here. With respect to particle counts, I understand the value of those in theory. However, I have no idea what the error bars are on these things, nor what the body of data is like on them for the sake of comparison. Maybe Dave Newton has an idea on that from all the data he has sifted through.

Realistically, I don't think you'd have any problems making the 300,000 miles on the engine as long as normal maintenance practices are followed. That assumes, of course, the that manufacturer's OCIs aren't overly optimistic and that your driving habits aren't terribly hard on the engine, and there isn't some design flaw.

Generally speaking, I trust the certified lubes that are out there, and a little toying with viscosity isn't going to make much difference, and brand won't matter at all, within statistical noise.

 

[AcuraTL]

Back when this car was a commuter when it was new, the MID (Acura's oil life monitor) would take me to about 10k. This car was factory filled with dino so that's what it's calibrated for. The lowest I've ever gotten is about 3,500 miles but that's with my current drive to work which is 3 miles round trip per day. I wish I could ride my bike but it would be suicide on rush hour traffic. Most people that do mixed driving say their oil change comes up between 5k-6k miles. I like having the MID because I spend a good amount of time idling at shows giving demos of the audio system (it's a sound quality system, not a be heard a mile away system). However, with my current drive I change twice a year and don't pay attention to the miles or the MID unless the MID tells me to change before my scheduled oil change interval. I could probably go with a once a year OCI and be fine.

I run the 30wt because winters rarely get down to freezing and summers regularly go into the 90s with several days into the triple digits. I ran a 5w-40 in the summer back when I lived in Mesa, Az. I believe in using the right viscosity based on temperature and usage and the highest HTHSv while retaining good cold flow since HTHSv is directly related to wear.

About the brand and viscosity not making any difference in wear, have you done the research to prove it?

I chose Redline 5w-30 for its high HTHSv, ZDDP (125,000 miles and the cats and O2s work great with it recently blowing zero hydrocarbons), it's high polarity, no VIIs, very low NOACK, it's high temp stability, resistance to coking or piston ring land deposits, it's cleaning ability, the consistently good teardowns I've done on other engines running this brand, consistently good UOAs, and the fact that esters are cool lol. So while I have not tested another TL under identical conditions with other oils and torn them down, those are the reasons I went with Redline 5w-30 in this car. It doesn't meet spec for this car but I think it will do. What sucks is we won't know for sure for a lot of years.

One other thing, I'm installing a block heater to run year round to see if it helps mpg. Others that have done this with a very short drive say it drastically helps. It will only have one cold start a day and it will be during the warmest part of the day. In the morning the engine should be 110-120F before starting it I believe.

Let me know if you find anything about the accuracy of the particle count tests. I'm going to look around for some info too.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: JAM25
Idk why I want to use 10W-30 but I want feedback.


Have you ever done the bottle shake test in the store? 5W-20 feels like water.



Feels like water eh. That's gotta take the cake for today's most interesting and absurd post.
If you think its thin now just how thick do you think any oil is at operating temp.
I'd explain how this whole lubrication thing works but I don't think you'd grasp any of it.
Very sad for as much time you spend here you still choose to believe absurdities and perpetuate them in your posts.

Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
With that said, do you believe all oils that meet the same spec will have the exact same wear rate?

Belief is irrelevant. The exact same wear rate is a loaded phrase, too, since that's technically impossible. I would, however, suggest that it is virtually impossible to tell one oil that meets the specification from another that meets it as well, in terms of engine wear and longevity.

Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
I'm interested in which oil is going to give my daily driver the lowest wear and the longest life in the conditions it's operated in and that's pretty easy to do with particle counts and UOAs.

Those only give you an indirect view of wear, and that is not an accepted way of comparing lube to lube. Tear downs provide direct, reliable measurements of wear. UOAs do not.

Truth be told, you'll get more life out of an engine than you'll ever want just by following the manufacturer's recommendations and buying by price within specifications. I've never had to junk a vehicle because of engine wear, and in fleet use, we doubled the OCI and stuck with conventional of the specified grade.


I agree 100% that tear downs are the best way for determining wear by a long shot but we have to make due with what we have. Trust me, if I had the time and the money I would love to do regular teardowns but that's not practical. Particle counts are better than what the vast majority use in a $20 UOA. I believe people put waaaaay too much weight on the wear metals in these tests. Unless I see a HUGE jump in metals I ignore that section completely. I'm surprised the vast majority accept that those tests particularly the wear metals are a valid way to determine which oil is better when it's so incredibly flawed.

You're right that the vehicle will likely be junked for reasons other than a worn engine just by following the manufacturers recommendation but what fun would that be. We're all here because we all have some form of OCD when it comes to oil. I can't wait to tear mine down one day because it's the only car I've owned that's run the same brand and almost the same weight for its entire life. I'll likely be buying a new car soon and this one might become my commuter. The goal is at least 300,000 miles and I don't want it to just make it to 300k, I want it to be in excellent shape with very little wear, getting good mpg and making the same power it made when new when it gets there. That's my justification for running an expensive oil and filter and changing it every 5,000 miles anyway.


Ha.
I'll use PYB at 5000 mile intervals in that car and its gonna run just as well as yours does but will cost me half as much in oil costs.

I've got a great idea. Let's buy engine oils that are mucho expensive and engineered to last more miles,hence the extra cost but only run them for the same mileage any conventional can achieve and sleep well knowing we spent more to get the same end result.
We call people with this type of thought process "marks","hits","suckers and my favorite "stooge".

 

[Cujet]

UOA results are MANDATORY for our Eurocopter EC-135 main transmission gearbox and for our Pratt and Whitney PT-6 powered Pilatus PC-12.

It's interesting that the manufacturers rely so heavily on such a flawed, $20, non scientific test that tells you absolutely nothing about internal wear.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: AcuraTL
About the brand and viscosity not making any difference in wear, have you done the research to prove it?

No, that's why I trust certified lubes.

I'll wager, however, that it's very much likely true, at least within statistical noise, considering a few things and assuming people are following instructions within reason (and not going terribly out of spec). Every application is different. Driving and maintenance habits differ. Specifications evolve. And the logistics involved in conducting such a study would be next to impossible.

If an oil company could reasonably claim that its oils made engines last the longest, they certainly would claim that. Then, they'd all be competing to top that. As it is, trying to find the oil that's "best" with respect to wear protection among a selection of approved lubes would be an almost insurmountable challenge even to the automakers and oil companies.

As for particle count accuracy, I will have to see what I can find.