Is the Toyota 0w-20 recommendation for CAFE?

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
In terms of this website, what's going to happen when 0w-16 and 0w-8 are fully developed to match the future engine hardware. Will people still be promoting 10w-40 for extra "protection" in these engines?? Will the framing of this argument be a CAFE conspiracy into the year 2030 when the engine technology has already made the argument irrelevant?? My take is probably...yes...and I don't think that's particularly facetious or sarcastic.



If the "future engine hardware" is designed for 0W-8 or 0W-16, there should be no problems with people in the know. My beef and the beef of others here is when an engine that was using 5W30 for several years with no issue is suddenly spec'd for 5W20 with no mods or changes to the engine. The only change was the model year, and then in that model year no other choices regarding oil grade were given. Then in other parts of the world there were no changes to oil grade for the same engine. That sparked a lot of the controversy here with several members. Now if that engine was redesigned and modifications were made to warrant the thinner oil so be it. No changes is what got a lot of people thinking and posting about it here and on other sites as strictly CAFE related. Now some of those same engines got the green light again to use 5W30, several years later.

 

[buster]

Quote:
It's pretty unequivocal that CAFE (and in other markets GHG) is A primary driver.


Most definitely.

Even in some owner's manuals, they clearly state that for high speed driving, you may be better off moving up to a 5w30 over the recommended xw20. There are certainly trafeoffs.

If you do use a 20 grade, I'd opt for a majority PAO/low viscosity index oil such as Mobil 1 EP. I'd also consider using one with a HT/HS of 2.7/2.75. You can even use one of the 30 grades in place for an additional safety cushion. For example, most xw30 grades today have a HT/HS of about 3.0-3.1.

The 0w20 Volvo recommends had to have a HT/HS of 2.75 min, which was made by Castrol. Once your'e down below 2.6 HT/HS, you're playing with fire.

Fuel dilution is an issue too.

 

[HTSS_TR]

I think one of the main reasons that xW20 are recommended for North America is how the vehicle is driven.

With speed limit and efficient transmission(taller final drive ratio) such that most of the time the engine is turning at much lower RPM than other parts of the world. This low RPM generates little heat so that oil temperature is much lower than let say in Europe. Lower oil temp don't need heavy oil.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I think one of the main reasons that xW20 are recommended for North America is how the vehicle is driven.

With speed limit and efficient transmission(taller final drive ratio) such that most of the time the engine is turning at much lower RPM than other parts of the world. This low RPM generates little heat so that oil temperature is much lower than let say in Europe. Lower oil temp don't need heavy oil.


That too. High speed driving changes everything.

Also, "acceptable" doesn't mean preferred.

Joe Schmoe who putzes around at 60 mph on the highway in his car will probably be ok using any 20 grade oil.

You're also dealing with higher NOACK volatility when you go to lower viscosity oils. This is another reason you're better off with a PAO based 0w20 which will have a NOACK of 10% or less.

The argument for better start up wear is flawed too. All of the major syn formulations score below 20 microns on the IVA wear test. It's really not an issue.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
I think one of the main reasons that xW20 are recommended for North America is how the vehicle is driven.

With speed limit and efficient transmission(taller final drive ratio) such that most of the time the engine is turning at much lower RPM than other parts of the world. This low RPM generates little heat so that oil temperature is much lower than let say in Europe. Lower oil temp don't need heavy oil.


Certainly, and here's a Honda map of loads and RPMs from one of their papers.

Using a type K thermocouple down the dipstick of my Caprice, I get 100C on my commute...hold it in "2" for 10 minutes, and it reads 135C...for the same 100km/h and same road load (with an ILSAC 5W30)

Revs matter for oil heat.

 

[tig1]

More hand ringing and sweaty palms over 20 wt oils. Most here never drive their vehicles long enough to find out what oil will properly lube their engines for the long haul.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Using a type K thermocouple down the dipstick of my Caprice, I get 100C on my commute...hold it in "2" for 10 minutes, and it reads 135C...for the same 100km/h and same road load (with an ILSAC 5W30)


Stop !!! Nobody move !

Shannow, have you been running an ILSAC oil ?
I thought you were an A3/B4 man.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
More hand ringing and sweaty palms over 20 wt oils. Most here never drive their vehicles long enough to find out what oil will properly lube their engines for the long haul.


I think you mean "wringing", and I don't see it.

Although your latter part is my point...so what if it never impacts you in the typical vehicle life...and if is saves a hundred gallons of gas or so.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Using a type K thermocouple down the dipstick of my Caprice, I get 100C on my commute...hold it in "2" for 10 minutes, and it reads 135C...for the same 100km/h and same road load (with an ILSAC 5W30)


Stop !!! Nobody move !

Shannow, have you been running an ILSAC oil ?
I thought you were an A3/B4 man.


That was Magnatec Economy 5W30...It didn't noticeably affect economy over 5W40 Magnatec SP, and the 135C temperatures confirmed to me that A3/B4 was my settling place.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
More hand ringing and sweaty palms over 20 wt oils. Most here never drive their vehicles long enough to find out what oil will properly lube their engines for the long haul.


I think you mean "wringing", and I don't see it.

Although your latter part is my point...so what if it never impacts you in the typical vehicle life...and if is saves a hundred gallons of gas or so.


My bad on the spelling. However, the life of many Ford 4.6 V8s, for example,if well cared for, can be upwards of 400-500K miles on 20wt. Just sayin.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: tig1
More hand ringing and sweaty palms over 20 wt oils. Most here never drive their vehicles long enough to find out what oil will properly lube their engines for the long haul.

I didn't use xW20 in my LS400, it had 5W30 all its life. It didn't need thicker or high mileage oil even it consumed 1/2 quart of oil from new, no more and no less.

The E430 oil spec is A3/B4 and MB 229.3-5, but I tried xW20 in it several OCI's and the engine seems to run quieter with thinner oil. This car mostly see around 2300-2500 RPM while in Europe it can run 5500-6000 RPM all day. I was pretty sure that at less than 3,000 RPM the oil is much cooler than 6,000 RPM, that why I use xW20 in it.

I'm probably 1 of very few drivers use 2 grades thinner than spec'ed in a German engine.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Using a type K thermocouple down the dipstick of my Caprice, I get 100C on my commute...hold it in "2" for 10 minutes, and it reads 135C...for the same 100km/h and same road load (with an ILSAC 5W30)

Revs matter for oil heat.

Viscosity of xW40 at 135 is lower than xW20 at 100C.

If I have oil temp gauge in my Honda S2000, I may be able to use thinner oil if at operating temperature the oil isn't higher than 200-210F. As of now I must stay with 10W30 because I don't have oil temp gauge.

 

[Shannow]

Bear in mind also that there's a fair increase in temps in the big end over bulk oil temperatures.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SR5
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Using a type K thermocouple down the dipstick of my Caprice, I get 100C on my commute...hold it in "2" for 10 minutes, and it reads 135C...for the same 100km/h and same road load (with an ILSAC 5W30)


Stop !!! Nobody move !

Shannow, have you been running an ILSAC oil ?
I thought you were an A3/B4 man.


That was Magnatec Economy 5W30...It didn't noticeably affect economy over 5W40 Magnatec SP, and the 135C temperatures confirmed to me that A3/B4 was my settling place.


OK, experimentation……..that's fine.
Just checking.
.
.
.
As you were gentlemen.
.
.
.
.
.
Nothing to see here.

 

[akela]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Doesn't reducing friction equal less heat and less wear?

No.
Less heat, maybe. Less wear - that would be a speculation.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: akela
Originally Posted By: tig1
Doesn't reducing friction equal less heat and less wear?

No.
Less heat, maybe. Less wear - that would be a speculation.


So, more friction is a good thing? I always thought less friction was to be desired. Is this equal to "New Math"?

 

[Skid]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: akela
Originally Posted By: tig1
Doesn't reducing friction equal less heat and less wear?

No.
Less heat, maybe. Less wear - that would be a speculation.


So, more friction is a good thing? I always thought less friction was to be desired. Is this equal to "New Math"?

ZDDP is an example - increases friction, reduces wear.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Skid
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: akela
Originally Posted By: tig1
Doesn't reducing friction equal less heat and less wear?

No.
Less heat, maybe. Less wear - that would be a speculation.


So, more friction is a good thing? I always thought less friction was to be desired. Is this equal to "New Math"?

ZDDP is an example - increases friction, reduces wear.

But too much ZDDP increases wear?? Or some other negative? Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: akela
Originally Posted By: tig1
Doesn't reducing friction equal less heat and less wear?

No.
Less heat, maybe. Less wear - that would be a speculation.


So, more friction is a good thing? I always thought less friction was to be desired. Is this equal to "New Math"?


Per a few posts ago....

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Doesn't reducing friction equal less heat and less wear? All I know is, I Have been using 0-20 for several years now and my engine appear to perform like new.


tig1, we've actually been over this misconception many many times...but again...

Full hydrodynamic has zero contact, and was traditionally called the zero wear regime of lubrication...has high viscous friction.

As viscosity drops, the film thickness drops, and at some point, friction and wear goes up...friction modifiers are added to reduce the friction and wear in these regimes, but as contact is partially present, it's no longer zero wear, but "acceptable life"...and that can be a long time.

So no, lower friction does not equal lower wear in all cases.

 

[akela]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: akela
Originally Posted By: tig1
Doesn't reducing friction equal less heat and less wear?

No.
Less heat, maybe. Less wear - that would be a speculation.

So, more friction is a good thing? I always thought less friction was to be desired. Is this equal to "New Math"?

More friction is bad thing. More wear is bad thing too. Therefore, more friction causes more wear. Right?