debate of thinner oils
- Thread starter ram_man
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: RedOakRanch
I have an old CAT diesel that I run 15w40 in. The manual says to use 10 20 or 30 grade oil depending on the temp. No 40 was even mentioned. It also gave ratios for cutting the oil with kerosine in cold weather, talk about fuel dilution!
Here's the updated recommendation...
https://safety.cat.com/cda/files/715418/7/Cold+Weather+Recommendations+For+all+Machines.pdf
an xW appropriate for the conditions, and a "40" (or 30) multigrade. No kerosene anymore.
Interesting to use kerosene to condition the hydraulic hoses so that they don't crack in the cold.
I have an old CAT diesel that I run 15w40 in. The manual says to use 10 20 or 30 grade oil depending on the temp. No 40 was even mentioned. It also gave ratios for cutting the oil with kerosine in cold weather, talk about fuel dilution!
Here's the updated recommendation...
https://safety.cat.com/cda/files/715418/7/Cold+Weather+Recommendations+For+all+Machines.pdf
an xW appropriate for the conditions, and a "40" (or 30) multigrade. No kerosene anymore.
Interesting to use kerosene to condition the hydraulic hoses so that they don't crack in the cold.
Shannow, you are better than google scholar.
Thanks Shannon. Me dreams of oil cut with kerosine are over!
LOL
LOL
Sorry Shannow I didn't catch the auto correct above.
I would have no engine related concerns towing the Popup at 85MPH in the Focus in the Texas heat using a 0w-20 engine oil.
It was around before fuel economy was a concern and it's my opinion that it lubricates better than heavier oils. If the manufacturer recommends it, it's good enough for any conditions I can put the car under.
The 4.80-8 tires probably wouldn't be too happy spinning that fast on super hot pavement.
It was around before fuel economy was a concern and it's my opinion that it lubricates better than heavier oils. If the manufacturer recommends it, it's good enough for any conditions I can put the car under.
The 4.80-8 tires probably wouldn't be too happy spinning that fast on super hot pavement.
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I would have no engine related concerns towing the Popup at 85MPH in the Focus in the Texas heat using a 0w-20 engine oil.
It was around before fuel economy was a concern and it's my opinion that it lubricates better than heavier oils.
For part 1 ... really the 0W20 was around before CAFE ?
For part 2 ... do you have anything to back up your opinion that it lubricates better ?
(that doesn't include University 101's discredited "more flow")
I would have no engine related concerns towing the Popup at 85MPH in the Focus in the Texas heat using a 0w-20 engine oil.
It was around before fuel economy was a concern and it's my opinion that it lubricates better than heavier oils.
For part 1 ... really the 0W20 was around before CAFE ?
For part 2 ... do you have anything to back up your opinion that it lubricates better ?
(that doesn't include University 101's discredited "more flow")
My example, 1998 Ford Ranger V6 4x4 pick-up used as a work truck with long stints in the SoCal desert doing off-road route condition surveys. Went over 200k w/o major incident to the motor.
First 100K it got 5W-20 Motorcraft oil and filters at dealers serviced at 6K OCI per warranty and fleet requirements. No oil consumption, no issues passing smog.
100K to 150K it got 10W-30 at dealer service dept, same OCI. Around 130K it lost the cam position sensor. Repaired and it ran better than ever.
Around 150K it went in for a bi-annual smog inspection which required a chassis dyno load and then acceleration load of some kind. I did not look at params and was not allowed in the dyno bay.
But, I was across the lot facing the front of the truck with the door open and I could not believe noise that motor was putting out at load and speed. It was really loud and thrashing.
Next change I went to Delo400 15W-40 at local drive through Chevron Oil Stop (they accepted employers CC). Motor quieted down significantly and mileage remained the same. Still no oil consumption of note. Barely a 1/2 qt between changes.
I don't like noise. It means mechanical bits a flailing away. Might run OK, but why listen to it...
I did change up to a full 1 qt filter at 100K. And since it was driven in 120*+ heat at low speed for hours at a time with the A/C on in nasty dusty conditions, I never knowingly exceeded the 6K OCI.
Truck was still running fine when it went off for fleet auction.
Bottom line, run what makes the operator and the motor happy
Always use good oil, at least the MFGs recommended until warranty is up.
First 100K it got 5W-20 Motorcraft oil and filters at dealers serviced at 6K OCI per warranty and fleet requirements. No oil consumption, no issues passing smog.
100K to 150K it got 10W-30 at dealer service dept, same OCI. Around 130K it lost the cam position sensor. Repaired and it ran better than ever.
Around 150K it went in for a bi-annual smog inspection which required a chassis dyno load and then acceleration load of some kind. I did not look at params and was not allowed in the dyno bay.
But, I was across the lot facing the front of the truck with the door open and I could not believe noise that motor was putting out at load and speed. It was really loud and thrashing.
Next change I went to Delo400 15W-40 at local drive through Chevron Oil Stop (they accepted employers CC). Motor quieted down significantly and mileage remained the same. Still no oil consumption of note. Barely a 1/2 qt between changes.
I don't like noise. It means mechanical bits a flailing away. Might run OK, but why listen to it...
I did change up to a full 1 qt filter at 100K. And since it was driven in 120*+ heat at low speed for hours at a time with the A/C on in nasty dusty conditions, I never knowingly exceeded the 6K OCI.
Truck was still running fine when it went off for fleet auction.
Bottom line, run what makes the operator and the motor happy
Always use good oil, at least the MFGs recommended until warranty is up.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
For one some collects in the filter. Two, the analytical methods do not measure all of the particle sizes in the oil. So no, UOA does not wear give rate. This seems to need to be explained constantly on this site. Lastly, the amount of data needed to compare two oils on even the same engine type is beyond looking at UOAs on the web.
That's what an analytical method salesman said about the particle sizes. He was selling an analytical method that counts particles. I would take it with a grain of salt.
If the wear is large enough to produce particles that will get trapped in the filter, it will produce MANY particles that are too small to be filtered as well. This is why the particle argument is irrelevant.
What is more likely to happen in an engine? Clean breaks of metal into large particles, or slow erosion of metal at a microscopic level?
The UOAs on neglected engines do produce more metal readings.
They do not tell you the wear rate but they tell you the average wear over time.
I agree that UOAs give you a limited number of information and you need to build trends, but to say they don't measure wear at all is completely false IMO.
For one some collects in the filter. Two, the analytical methods do not measure all of the particle sizes in the oil. So no, UOA does not wear give rate. This seems to need to be explained constantly on this site. Lastly, the amount of data needed to compare two oils on even the same engine type is beyond looking at UOAs on the web.
That's what an analytical method salesman said about the particle sizes. He was selling an analytical method that counts particles. I would take it with a grain of salt.
If the wear is large enough to produce particles that will get trapped in the filter, it will produce MANY particles that are too small to be filtered as well. This is why the particle argument is irrelevant.
What is more likely to happen in an engine? Clean breaks of metal into large particles, or slow erosion of metal at a microscopic level?
The UOAs on neglected engines do produce more metal readings.
They do not tell you the wear rate but they tell you the average wear over time.
I agree that UOAs give you a limited number of information and you need to build trends, but to say they don't measure wear at all is completely false IMO.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
They do not tell you the wear rate but they tell you the average wear over time.
Not really, they just tell you how many PPM you've accrued in that interval. That number, by itself, is only useful if you've got condemnation limits from the manufacturer or if it has deviated significantly from the trend you've established for that piece of equipment.
The average wear over time, to be measured, would require an actual tear down and physical measurements taken. Instead, what you are looking at is simply the concentration of particles in a given volume of lubricant which varies not only by sump size but is easily jaded by the addition of make-up oil.
What you are provided with is data from which to establish the average rate, per 1K miles, at which your engine sheds particles of a certain type, as well as the ability to check the health of the lubricant. This information is extremely useful for watching for coolant ingress, dirt ingestion as well as whether a mechanical issue may be present that is resulting in a significant uptick in particulate, and subsequently wear, over that interval.
Different oils will provide different levels of change in certain metals in a sample due to the surface interaction between the additive package and the materials the engine and its components are made of. This is not an increase in wear, which is why when people are chasing the Golden Goose through UOA's and switching lubes over minute PPM variances they are embarking upon a fools errand.
People WANT to be able to look at a UOA and compare wear between oils. It is a cheap and easy test and demands very little of the equipment owner. Who wouldn't want to be able to simply take a sample, compare it to another sample and figure out which oil is the "best"? It would be awesome! You can compare how well an oil holds up viscosity-wise. You can compare how well an oil does in terms of TBN retention, but you cannot just glance at two UOA's and glean anything significant about wear other than whether it is unusual or not for that particular piece of equipment, which itself requires a UOA database with trends already established.
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
I agree that UOAs give you a limited number of information and you need to build trends, but to say they don't measure wear at all is completely false IMO.
They don't DIRECTLY measure wear. They measure the accumulation of (usually normal) contaminants, which includes wear byproducts, in the lubricant, I think that distinction needs to be made.
They do not tell you the wear rate but they tell you the average wear over time.
Not really, they just tell you how many PPM you've accrued in that interval. That number, by itself, is only useful if you've got condemnation limits from the manufacturer or if it has deviated significantly from the trend you've established for that piece of equipment.
The average wear over time, to be measured, would require an actual tear down and physical measurements taken. Instead, what you are looking at is simply the concentration of particles in a given volume of lubricant which varies not only by sump size but is easily jaded by the addition of make-up oil.
What you are provided with is data from which to establish the average rate, per 1K miles, at which your engine sheds particles of a certain type, as well as the ability to check the health of the lubricant. This information is extremely useful for watching for coolant ingress, dirt ingestion as well as whether a mechanical issue may be present that is resulting in a significant uptick in particulate, and subsequently wear, over that interval.
Different oils will provide different levels of change in certain metals in a sample due to the surface interaction between the additive package and the materials the engine and its components are made of. This is not an increase in wear, which is why when people are chasing the Golden Goose through UOA's and switching lubes over minute PPM variances they are embarking upon a fools errand.
People WANT to be able to look at a UOA and compare wear between oils. It is a cheap and easy test and demands very little of the equipment owner. Who wouldn't want to be able to simply take a sample, compare it to another sample and figure out which oil is the "best"? It would be awesome! You can compare how well an oil holds up viscosity-wise. You can compare how well an oil does in terms of TBN retention, but you cannot just glance at two UOA's and glean anything significant about wear other than whether it is unusual or not for that particular piece of equipment, which itself requires a UOA database with trends already established.
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
I agree that UOAs give you a limited number of information and you need to build trends, but to say they don't measure wear at all is completely false IMO.
They don't DIRECTLY measure wear. They measure the accumulation of (usually normal) contaminants, which includes wear byproducts, in the lubricant, I think that distinction needs to be made.
If you know what you are doing, UOA can be a powerful tool for detecting abnormal wear and preventing more serious problems.
I am surprised more people do not cringe at 20wt oils. I drive pretty spirited and 20wt just seems so thin. I like 5w40 personally by the sound of it. Thin at start up but thick enough to protect well when hot. Maybe i am crazy but i want the engine to go 300,000 miles without issue .
a high hths 5w30 would be better than any 5w40.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
They do not tell you the wear rate but they tell you the average wear over time.
Not really, they just tell you how many PPM you've accrued in that interval. That number, by itself, is only useful if you've got condemnation limits from the manufacturer or if it has deviated significantly from the trend you've established for that piece of equipment.
The average wear over time, to be measured, would require an actual tear down and physical measurements taken. Instead, what you are looking at is simply the concentration of particles in a given volume of lubricant which varies not only by sump size but is easily jaded by the addition of make-up oil.
What you are provided with is data from which to establish the average rate, per 1K miles, at which your engine sheds particles of a certain type, as well as the ability to check the health of the lubricant. This information is extremely useful for watching for coolant ingress, dirt ingestion as well as whether a mechanical issue may be present that is resulting in a significant uptick in particulate, and subsequently wear, over that interval.
Different oils will provide different levels of change in certain metals in a sample due to the surface interaction between the additive package and the materials the engine and its components are made of. This is not an increase in wear, which is why when people are chasing the Golden Goose through UOA's and switching lubes over minute PPM variances they are embarking upon a fools errand.
People WANT to be able to look at a UOA and compare wear between oils. It is a cheap and easy test and demands very little of the equipment owner. Who wouldn't want to be able to simply take a sample, compare it to another sample and figure out which oil is the "best"? It would be awesome! You can compare how well an oil holds up viscosity-wise. You can compare how well an oil does in terms of TBN retention, but you cannot just glance at two UOA's and glean anything significant about wear other than whether it is unusual or not for that particular piece of equipment, which itself requires a UOA database with trends already established.
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
I agree that UOAs give you a limited number of information and you need to build trends, but to say they don't measure wear at all is completely false IMO.
They don't DIRECTLY measure wear. They measure the accumulation of (usually normal) contaminants, which includes wear byproducts, in the lubricant, I think that distinction needs to be made.
Good post. I think there needs to be a carefully written sticky on what UOA can and can't be used for. There is so much misinformation posted consistently on this site.
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
They do not tell you the wear rate but they tell you the average wear over time.
Not really, they just tell you how many PPM you've accrued in that interval. That number, by itself, is only useful if you've got condemnation limits from the manufacturer or if it has deviated significantly from the trend you've established for that piece of equipment.
The average wear over time, to be measured, would require an actual tear down and physical measurements taken. Instead, what you are looking at is simply the concentration of particles in a given volume of lubricant which varies not only by sump size but is easily jaded by the addition of make-up oil.
What you are provided with is data from which to establish the average rate, per 1K miles, at which your engine sheds particles of a certain type, as well as the ability to check the health of the lubricant. This information is extremely useful for watching for coolant ingress, dirt ingestion as well as whether a mechanical issue may be present that is resulting in a significant uptick in particulate, and subsequently wear, over that interval.
Different oils will provide different levels of change in certain metals in a sample due to the surface interaction between the additive package and the materials the engine and its components are made of. This is not an increase in wear, which is why when people are chasing the Golden Goose through UOA's and switching lubes over minute PPM variances they are embarking upon a fools errand.
People WANT to be able to look at a UOA and compare wear between oils. It is a cheap and easy test and demands very little of the equipment owner. Who wouldn't want to be able to simply take a sample, compare it to another sample and figure out which oil is the "best"? It would be awesome! You can compare how well an oil holds up viscosity-wise. You can compare how well an oil does in terms of TBN retention, but you cannot just glance at two UOA's and glean anything significant about wear other than whether it is unusual or not for that particular piece of equipment, which itself requires a UOA database with trends already established.
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
I agree that UOAs give you a limited number of information and you need to build trends, but to say they don't measure wear at all is completely false IMO.
They don't DIRECTLY measure wear. They measure the accumulation of (usually normal) contaminants, which includes wear byproducts, in the lubricant, I think that distinction needs to be made.
Good post. I think there needs to be a carefully written sticky on what UOA can and can't be used for. There is so much misinformation posted consistently on this site.
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
For one some collects in the filter. Two, the analytical methods do not measure all of the particle sizes in the oil. So no, UOA does not wear give rate. This seems to need to be explained constantly on this site. Lastly, the amount of data needed to compare two oils on even the same engine type is beyond looking at UOAs on the web.
That's what an analytical method salesman said about the particle sizes. He was selling an analytical method that counts particles. I would take it with a grain of salt.
If the wear is large enough to produce particles that will get trapped in the filter, it will produce MANY particles that are too small to be filtered as well. This is why the particle argument is irrelevant.
What is more likely to happen in an engine? Clean breaks of metal into large particles, or slow erosion of metal at a microscopic level?
The UOAs on neglected engines do produce more metal readings.
They do not tell you the wear rate but they tell you the average wear over time.
I agree that UOAs give you a limited number of information and you need to build trends, but to say they don't measure wear at all is completely false IMO.
If by analytical salesman you mean Blackstone, then yes that is one of many sources who claim that when using the analytical equipment for analyzing the metals in oil sample they do not measure all particle sizes but only within a certain range. It has been posted many times on this site.
An oil filter is capturing particles that are within the range of the analytical analysis method. How much that affects is speculation which is one of the reasons Fe ppm/mile is not a direct wear rate.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
For one some collects in the filter. Two, the analytical methods do not measure all of the particle sizes in the oil. So no, UOA does not wear give rate. This seems to need to be explained constantly on this site. Lastly, the amount of data needed to compare two oils on even the same engine type is beyond looking at UOAs on the web.
That's what an analytical method salesman said about the particle sizes. He was selling an analytical method that counts particles. I would take it with a grain of salt.
If the wear is large enough to produce particles that will get trapped in the filter, it will produce MANY particles that are too small to be filtered as well. This is why the particle argument is irrelevant.
What is more likely to happen in an engine? Clean breaks of metal into large particles, or slow erosion of metal at a microscopic level?
The UOAs on neglected engines do produce more metal readings.
They do not tell you the wear rate but they tell you the average wear over time.
I agree that UOAs give you a limited number of information and you need to build trends, but to say they don't measure wear at all is completely false IMO.
If by analytical salesman you mean Blackstone, then yes that is one of many sources who claim that when using the analytical equipment for analyzing the metals in oil sample they do not measure all particle sizes but only within a certain range. It has been posted many times on this site.
An oil filter is capturing particles that are within the range of the analytical analysis method. How much that affects is speculation which is one of the reasons Fe ppm/mile is not a direct wear rate.
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: camrydriver111
ram_man said:
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Thinner oils are easier to pump through the engine but don't lubricate as well as thicker oils.
True and debatable.
There are literally billions of miles of cars driven using 0W-20 and 5W-20 oil with no ill effects.
If you race a car frequently, then yes, a thicker oil is needed. 99% of the people don't race their cars so a thicker oil is not needed.
Thinner oils are easier to pump through the engine but don't lubricate as well as thicker oils.
True and debatable.
There are literally billions of miles of cars driven using 0W-20 and 5W-20 oil with no ill effects.
If you race a car frequently, then yes, a thicker oil is needed. 99% of the people don't race their cars so a thicker oil is not needed.
The attitude on here towards UOAs in general is something like this:
"I've done few UOAs and therefore I feel like I can comment on other people's UOAs and can tell exactly how the engine and the oil are doing"
At least on here it is corrected from time to time, but on other forums just knowing what the acronym UOA stands for will grant you an "oil expert" status.
"I've done few UOAs and therefore I feel like I can comment on other people's UOAs and can tell exactly how the engine and the oil are doing"
At least on here it is corrected from time to time, but on other forums just knowing what the acronym UOA stands for will grant you an "oil expert" status.
Originally Posted By: stchman
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Thinner oils are easier to pump through the engine but don't lubricate as well as thicker oils.
True and debatable.
There are literally billions of miles of cars driven using 0W-20 and 5W-20 oil with no ill effects.
If you race a car frequently, then yes, a thicker oil is needed. 99% of the people don't race their cars so a thicker oil is not needed.
Exactly. For most operating conditions the suggested 20 grade in no way reduces engine life in any way.
If anything if one takes the data from today's engines they make more power than ever and last longer than ever before. Even when compared to the thick oil days.
And today's 20 grades at 100 times better than anything ever before,
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Thinner oils are easier to pump through the engine but don't lubricate as well as thicker oils.
True and debatable.
There are literally billions of miles of cars driven using 0W-20 and 5W-20 oil with no ill effects.
If you race a car frequently, then yes, a thicker oil is needed. 99% of the people don't race their cars so a thicker oil is not needed.
Exactly. For most operating conditions the suggested 20 grade in no way reduces engine life in any way.
If anything if one takes the data from today's engines they make more power than ever and last longer than ever before. Even when compared to the thick oil days.
And today's 20 grades at 100 times better than anything ever before,
- Status
Similar threads
