Future is THIN

[buster]

quote:

---

Is it real progress, or demonic CAFE requirements?

---

Part of the problem is not only are they lowering the viscosity, but reducing the anti-wear additives at the same time. Other replacement additives exist, but it comes with a price.

Theoretically speaking, it only makes sense to try and creat low viscosity oils though, not the other way around. It's a downward trend, not upwards. Why would anyone want to run anything greater then a 30wt oil in a modern gas engine? (unless specified for some specific reason)

Lower viscosity oils are better for start up wear, more horsepower, and great fuel economy. Let me be clear though, if a particular engine calls for a specific grade, by all means use that grade. What I'm trying to say is that if your a formulator, I'd imagine that you'd be trying to create the lowest viscosity oil possible with the greatest wear protection. IMO.

 

[buster]

From Synlube's website: (They are anti-thin oil)

quote:

---

No matter what oil you use for any purpose the ideal viscosity that provides the ultimate lubrication, that is TOTAL bearing surface separation, and at MINIMUM power that is consumed by the lubricants viscosity (MINIMUM TEMPERATURE RISE) occurs ONLY at ONE combination of:

SPEED
LOAD
TEMPERATURE.

Under ALL other combinations of the three factors, the lubricant is NOT IDEAL.
Some lubricants, due to much higher than normal viscosity index, can have more advantageous performance over much wider range of TEMPERATURE, SPEED and LOAD, than others and therefore can be used more universally in wide range of applications.
That is why some lubricants such as single grade SAE 30, must be changed to SAE 20 when operating temperature is reduced or to SAE 40 or SAE 50 when the operating temperature is increased.
So thicker more viscous oil is needed when engine is operated at higher temperature such as high summer heat.
Similarly the proper viscosity depends on LOAD, the higher the load the thicker or higher SAE number is required. So on highly loaded engine designed to used SAE 30 oil under normal operation SAE 40 or SAE 50 should be utilized.
Speed however has the opposite effect, when engine designed to run at 2,000 RPM is constantly run at 6,000 RPM but at the same load, the SAE 30 oil should be substituted with SAE 20 oil. Higher operating speed requires thinner or lower viscosity lubricant.
It is possible in some applications that the increase in load can be just offset by the increase in speed and then the same oil such as SAE 30 that is just right for NORMAL operation will be also JUST RIGHT for the new HIGH LOAD and HIGH SPEED regime.
"Old" truckers are well aware of this from experience, they get much better and longer engine life when running in lower gear up-hill. Extra LOAD is imposed on the engine by climbing uphill (lifting cargo weight against the pull of gravity requires more power therefore the engine LOAD is increased), this can be balanced by running engine at much higher RPM (this requires thinner lubricant).
The alternative of running uphill in low gear, that is at slow engine speed and increased load would surely require increase in motor oil viscosity or else almost certain engine damage would result.
It would be rather inconvenient to change motor oil before and after every major hill on the Interstate. Therefore changing gears is much more feasible.
Thinner motor oils such as 5W-20 or even 0W-20 are becoming more popular these days and are even specified by some OEM's (FORD & HONDA) on new 2001 cars.
Although these oils are promoted as "energy conserving" they generally trade a gain of less than 0.1 MPG in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for shorter useful engine life.
FORD which has previously designed cars to have 10 year or 150,000 miles life has reduced the mileage life expectation to "beyond 100,000 miles" on vehicles that are operated on SAE 5W-20 Motor Oil.
HONDA only claims "useful life" as 7-years or 70,000 miles in EPA certifications for their CIVIC which uses SAE 5W-20 Motor Oil, while the previous model that utilized SAE 5W-30 Motor Oil was certified for 10 year or 100,000 mile durability.
Since both HONDA and FORD Warranty their NEW cars for ONLY 3-years or 36,000-miles the reduction in engine life expectancy is not a factor.
By contrast Mercedes-Benz recommends use of ONLY Synthetic Motor Oil that is at least SAE 5W-40! This is a recent increase in recommended viscosity from SAE 5W-30. Apparently customer research indicated that engine longevity is more important to typical MB customer than fuel economy. Even more important is the High-Shear High-Temperature MINIMUM specification in SAE J300. In tables below you will notice that there are "two" SAE 40 specifications, one with minimum HSHT value of 2.9 cP for Automotive Oils (SAE 0W-40; 5W-40; 10W-40) and the other for Heavy Duty Oils (HDO) (SAE 15W-40; 20W-40; 25W-40; 40).

This double specification is at insistence of heavy duty engine manufacturers who have required HSHT viscosity limits consistent with good engine durability in high-load, severe service operation. HSHT value of 3.7 cP or 27% more viscous oil at 150ºC (300ºF).
Yes, a 27% increase in viscosity makes a difference between Automotive engine that lasts 100,000 miles and Truck engine that lasts 1,000,000 miles!
When you consider that most Automotive Motor Oils are ONLY 3 cP, while our
SAE 5W-50 SynLube™ Lube-4-Life™ Motor Oil has rating of 5 cP, you can readily appreciate why we can claim 300% to 500% increase in typical Automotive engine durability, and that is with substantial "safety" reserve!

---

 

[GrtArtiste]

I've been living with a 4 cyl Grand Am for years, before that a 4 cyl Cavalier and before that a 4 cyl Dodge Aries. My next car will be a G6 with the 2.2 Ecotec. That said, the auto makers are welcome to make 5w20 a standard if that suits 'em, but I believe 5w30 should still be approved for use in a 5w20 application. 5w20 protection may be sufficient, but I want the extra protection and a 5w30 offers. At least to me, 5w30 has proven it's worth and shouldn't be passed over for the sake of CAFE and emissions only. If there are other pertinent reasons for using 5w20...tell me what they are and I'll consider it.

 

[Mitch Alsup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paranoil:
Using smaller, technically advanced engines in lightweight vehicles will provide much bigger fuel savings.

---

There is evidence to the contrary:

A Corvette with its large 5.7 or 6.0 litre engine and a big overdrive transmission (6th gear = 0.50) can get 28-31 MPG at 65-70 MPH.

None of the competing sports cars with higher tech engines and similar performance get anywhere near this kind of fuel economy.

Heck, my Wifes Camry V6 does not get more than 1 MPG better and has less than 1/2 the HP and weighs less!

But the concept of lighter weight is perfectly valid. In my coming of age period, sports cars actually weighed in at 1600-1800 pounds! Now you are lucky to find anything with less than 2600 pounds.

 

[darkdan]

Don't worry, I'll start using 5w20 soon.

Thanks to the new CAFE standards that will take effect in a few years 5w20 will be the THICK oil that everyone will tell me to stop using.

Meanwhile, they'll be using their 0w5 and claim it's for better engine protection and not EPA reasons.

 

[bulwnkl]

Buster, I agree with your overall premise.

One of the things I don't agree with is this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nascarnation:

quote:

---

Is there not some way to shed this weight and still meet crash-worthiness standards?

---

Yes but the car winds up costing megabucks because the carbon composite stuff used in planes and race cars is not currently feasible in high volume manufacturing. [/QB]

---

I think that is very untrue. Carbon fiber and other related materials are very inexpensive to manufacture, and would be even more cost-effective if suddenly ALL Ford, Chevy, and Dodge pickups were made from or with it extensively. The issues with this type of material have chiefly to do with repair and repair shops (through lack of experience/expertise working with it), insurance companies (who lobby against because of repair costs presently being so high), and frankly the perception of that stuff being "for race cars so we'll have to charge you 10x the money."

I think another huge misconception is the entire concept of the power of the consumer. When it comes to things like automobiles, fuels, and even oils, you'll buy what you're offered and like it. Oh, you don't want to? What are you going to do about it? Build your own refinery? Your own manufacturing plant? I don't think so. Just the tiniest amount of regulation or taxation adjustment would make it essentially cost-prohibitive even for Bill & the boys in Redmond.

We don't have one grade of oil because we demand it, and Europe or Australia don't have another grade because they demand it or because they're stupid or smart. That's what people are used to, that's what's marketed here (and there), that's what was perhaps necessary for designs in the past. New designs can be made to use whatever you want them to, but that's not how things are done in some places.

So (soap boxing is over now) while I agree with buster, I also agree with Mitch and Gary Allen. I don't think there's a conspiracy, but I do think it's MUCH easier to continue down the road one is on than to suddenly jump to another.

 

[nickmckinney]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
From Synlube's website: (They are anti-thin oil)

No matter what oil you use for any purpose the ideal viscosity that provides the ultimate lubrication, that is TOTAL bearing surface separation, and at MINIMUM power that is consumed by the lubricants viscosity (MINIMUM TEMPERATURE RISE) occurs ONLY at ONE combination of:

SPEED
LOAD
TEMPERATURE.

Under ALL other combinations of the three factors, the lubricant is NOT IDEAL.

---

Ya know, once you add the real world variable of OIL PRESSURE, the rest of their argument kinda falls apart.

So many talk about film thickness, in reality you should be concerned with *oil pressure* at the crank bearings if you are worried about using thin oil. What I have seen kill crank bearings is #1 detonation, #2 dirt, and #3 out of round rods from way too much of #1. Otherwise they last pretty good for how soft they are if you don't have any of the above problems. Thicker oil lets your engine take more of the above abuse, but in reality thats just a bandaid, you could also simply stop the abuse.

Most modern engines are now rollerized on high friction points that are not oil pressurized (cam followers), don't have cams driving distributor gears which are then driving oil pumps, etc.

Piston rings and bores are fit much better since the early 90's and last so much longer compared to before. Plus the use of high silicon pistons (Hyper-u-spell-it) gets the tolerances super tight so the rings last longer, cranks more in round, oiling systems designed correctly (think Ford Cleveland), etc.

I see absolutely no problem with thinner oils in todays cars especially with all the high tech engine management systems keeping the car out of detonation, running rich, etc. The future will be thinner oil speced more, you can bet on that.

Edit - Forgot to mention that as speed increases oil pressure increases for most engines.

 

[MNgopher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nascarnation:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Holiday:
[QBQUOTE]the Jeep Lib disel doesn't get good MPG at all...look at the latest Consummer Report on it

---

I agree, looked at one and found the Vue with the Honda 3.5 had equal mileage with way more performance and fun factor. (for you Jeep fans I agree if I wanted to do the Rubicon trail the Liberty would be superior but this is a suburban cruiser that might see two 6 inch snowfalls a year.) [/QB]

---

I'm glad you found a vehicle that met your needs. For others, that may not be an option and I'd be willing to bet most Jeep fans would hardly call the Libby Rubicon ready (speaking as a Cherokee owner, of course!)

The way to look at it is how does the fuel mileage compare to the gas engine offerings. The diesel is rated at 21/26 mpg city/highway. The typical 3.7l V6 gas version is rated at 17/22. Fine, so they are the EPA numbers, but its the relative difference that counts. The diesel gets around 20% better mileage than the gasser. Take that out over a fleet, and the fuel savings begins to add up.

 

[oilyriser]

There's a PDF file out there somewhere that mentions a 3% savings if the top gear in transmissions was a direct drive 1:1 instead of overdrive. Each gear mesh is only 97% efficient, so 3% of power is wasted when you're in overdrive. The final ratio in the differential has to be changed to allow this.

 

[DJ]

I was in on a discussion about the OD Vs. 1:1 ratio thing and what has limited this is while we can have say 2.56 rear axle gears that allow a good cruise rpm with a 1:1 final tranny ratio what the problem is is getting a strong reliable 4+:1 first gear in the tranny to allow acceptable acceleration from a stop.

The 4L60E tranny in my cars is one of the lowest automatic tranny first gear ratios I am aware of with a 3.06:1.

GM is working on a new torque converter impeller that can allow a high stall speed yet still be efficient and only slip a comparatively small amount at higher rpms. Maybe this will be the solution to the gearing thing just use the torque converter to achieve the gearing goals. At this point they released a few of these impellers to an aftermarket torque converter builder an aquaintance of sorts who is into racing a car like mine got ahold of a converter built with one of these and even a 3K+stall only slips 100rpm at WOT at 5500rpms, normal would be more like 300+ even for a good converter. Technology like this may alow the 1:1 with 2.xx reaend gears and acceptable acceleration from a stop.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Our 3.5L Vue hit 29.1MPG on a recent hilly, but speed-controlled trip through Tennessee backroads from Chatanooga back to middle-TN. No A/C.

The last 40 miles was at 80+MPH, so I'm thinking MPG was over 30MPG until we hit the interstate.

Currently running M1 SM 5w-20/5w-30 mix.

Friends of ours repeatedly achieve 29MPH on their 05 Vue V6. They use dealer bulk oil.

As long at 20wts protect and will continute to protect an engine past a manufacturer's interval, I'm all for it. Assuming one is not lugging the engine (going up hills at low RPM, etc).

 

[pitzel]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbas:
"manual transmission"

---

Don't even need an actual 'stick' for an efficient transmission. Automatics can actually be more efficient if they are designed correctly, ie: with actual gears and clutches, instead of the torque converter. The new VW automatic tranny is an excellent example -- actually gives better EPA MPG than its manual transmission counterpart.

Properly implemented, people will clamour for automatic transmissions as a means of reducing fuel consumption.

Now, for the argument that engine longevity is affected by xW-20 oil instead of xW-30 or xW-40, how many engines built 25 years ago are still economical to operate on $4-$5/gallon fuel? Not very many. So an engine wears out a bit quicker on the xW-20 oil than the xW-30, its no big deal because that vehicle is old, otherwise worn out, and an extreme guzzler compared to modern vehicles.

The new Honda Accord diesel gets 60mpg, while brand its non-diesel counterpart gets 35-40mpg. Lots of room for growth in energy efficiency -- and when fuel is $25/gallon 15-20 years from now, it gets awfully cost effective to spend money on a newer car instead of fuelling an old gas guzzler.

 

[JohnBrowning]

I think OEM's are definately going to start recomending 5W20 across the board over the next 10 years! I do not think though that 5W20 will over replace 10W30,10W40,15W50,5W50,0W40 etc.... You have to rember that as long as people are allowed to buy what ever they want the market will be diverse! Their are too many people with old vechiles and engine designs. Then you have the Hot Rodders and Motorcycle crowd.Thenyou have the all the old timers. Then you have people like me! I will never use a 5W20 so long as other choices are available.

How much money in fuel do you think I will save useing a 5W20 over my 5W40/0W40 mix? Seeign how I drive very agressively my driveing style alone would eat any potenial fuel saveing. Then you have the whole low friction engine design. If your crank is not draging in the oil and all of the parts right down to the oil pump are low friction designs how much drag is the oil causeing?

Direct injection, lean auto ignition cycles, plasma injection,hybrid, super flywheel, 42 Volt electrical systems, 8-9 speed electroncily accuated automatic seq. gear box's are all going to do much more then 5W20 could ever hope to do for ecconomy!

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Will anything more than 6 forward speeds be necessary...I mean why not just utilize the services of a CVT trans, like the Ford 500. The base model is rated at 29MPG highway. I'm sure with proper driving 30+MPG will be the norm with a car like that.

The new Ford 500 is spec'd for 20wt as well???

 

[Curious Kid]

I agree JohnB, but it will have automakers having to reinvest in itself in tooling, etc, and all those associated with general and major repairs too will have to invest in training and equipment as well. Money is going to have to be spent none-the-less, be it vehicle owner, manufacturer, business owner or simply all the above. It's about change. It requires acknowledgement, refocus, and implementation, and the first step is the hardest!

As all revolves around resources - energy, this is a matter that isn't taken lightly...in all aspects of our lives. Heck, it kicked off what became known as the Industrial Revolution! It seems strange to think that much of our pleasure and leasure has come of this - how farming can be left to few to supply the whole with plenty, and enable the modern day "city life," and business opportunities that have lead to much economic and educational growth. Without such resources I ponder if much would have changed from the days of many generations past. I wonder just how many of us have a clue as to how "luxurious" we have it, including myself. As relativity would have it...

 

[pscholte]

bruce381 has pretty much summed up my concerns About 20 wts Please note the next to last sentence

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

There's a part of me that agrees with you PS. Case in point: Carol's V-10 motor home with the broken crankshaft.

 

[ex_MGB]

The biggest fuel savings is in lowering speeds. I think we're headed back to 55 mph speed limits. This will also keep vehicle wear down.

The U.S. future is 4 cylinder engines, manual tranny's, full synthetics in the driveline, front wheel drive (less drive train loss), 20 wt engine oil and when the low sulfur diesel gets to market, more and more diesels.

Also, smart highways and cars where cars and trucks can go autopilot and convoy/draft each other. Probably have to cull 99.9999% of the lawyers to get around liability lawsuits stifling technology innovation.

To protect U.S. jobs, the U.S. will mandate X percent of vehicle content must be domestic.

With the U.S. trade deficit, higher and higher oil prices will continue. Sooner or later the motoring public is going to throw in the towel on the gas guzzlers. If there's a major oil supply shock, it could be sooner.

 

[buster]

Lot of good info and points in this thread. I think it's perfectly understandable to have some reservation about 20wt oils. But until these accidents do occur with them, I see no reason to fear them personally. If you believe in oil analysis accurately depicting wear, then by default you think 20wts are perfectly fine.

 

[nickmckinney]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToyotaNSaturn:
There's a part of me that agrees with you PS. Case in point: Carol's V-10 motor home with the broken crankshaft.

---

Someone broke a crankshaft and 20W oil was the culprit???