Thick oil, thin oil piston wear

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: jrustles
I challenge the next person who says "optimal" wrt viscosity, to qualify it.

It's a free country. Use an "old mans" oil if you wish.

If oil is maintained at a reasonable temperature with a properly sized oil cooler, there would never be any need for a 30,40,50 or 60 weight oil. A heavy oil is a crutch for an improper design.


What if the engine doesn't have an oil cooler?
What if there's an oil cooler but it's too big for most operating conditions, but bulk engine oil temps are in the vicinity of 180 degrees F, but the cooler is just about right for the extreme end of the operating spectrum, and there's no thermostat to control oil flow, because all the oil goes through the cooler for simplicity of installation?

If a thick oil is a crutch for an improper design.
What if that design is all you've got?

With reference to the previous question.
Please advise, what is the ultimate engine design with the ultimate goal of >600 hp?
 
Last edited:
Thicker oil is superior to thinner oil. There, I said it. Nobody else has the guts to say it.
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Thicker oil is superior to thinner oil. There, I said it. Nobody else has the guts to say it.
grin2.gif



Shannow already said it, but I do note he did NOT state that it changes the ring end gap!
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I might be the minority here but I don't feel there's a one size fits all when it comes to engine oil. How the engine is operated,ambient temps as well as usage should all be considered when deciding on what grade oil is chosen.
A vehicle operated in the winter,short tripped and mainly acquires city miles will require something different than the same vehicle operated in the desert pulling a trailer.
For instance my charger gets 5w-20 in the winter for obvious reasons but once warmer ambient temps arrive I prefer a 0w-40 because I'll be driving it harder,oil temps will increase and stay elevated because of how I'm driving it.
A 5w-20 is fine at oil temps of 200f however at 260f I'm more comfortable with a 0w-40 in the sump.
I don't feel that one size does for all,maybe most,but not all


I like this one, good job.

Pick the oil by the duty cycle...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: mene
I have read the oil university, read a lot of threads regarding lower oil viscosity and understand everything and kind of agree with all the points and yet our van got to 475K. with a diet of Mobil 1 5W50 for 300K and the last 20K on 30 and the engine didn't like it, the unibody rusted out to the point of cracking but the engine ran perfectly I looked for a replacement body anywhere I could couldn't find one in decent shape; my point is even agreeing with the theory the facts don't support it at least in my personal experience and yes I have used thick oil all my life until this small test, I might try again but with a grain of salt.


Thicker oil provides greater separation between the piston, rings and liner...period...and reduces the length of the swept area that is undergoing boundary/mixed lubrication.

However, given that maximum piston speed is mid stroke, there can be excessive drag mid stroke...which wastes energy, but can't be any more "protective" than having a thinner oil at that point in the stroke.


Interesting and informative as always! That might rattle a few cages around here though.
27.gif
LOL
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Where did you find M1 5W-50?
That's a grade of M1 that you don't typically find in the US.
Also, when you say that the engine "didn't like" a 30 what did you mean?
20W20 was the standard grade for a number of years before multigrade oils became widely available.
Honda and Ford both began recommending twenty grades more than a decade ago.
Millions of engines have been operated for billions of miles since with no indication that a twenty grade is too thin to protect the piston skirts, rings or any other part of any engine.


FDCG27: I tused to be at Walmart's shelf's for decades, then it disappeared about 3~4 years ago you can still buy it but have to be ordered, Porsche racer's use it a lot. The engine became noisier with the 30 the oil pressure was sitll good, lower than with the 50 when hot but very much within spec's but having the car for more than 17 years I knew how much more RPM's were needed to reach relief valve opening over miles driven and years, with the 30 the rate of wear or RPM's needed to reach opening increased at a much faster rate, almost doubling it, I hope it makes sense, it is the best way I can explain it right now.

Clevy: I'm totally with you, horses for courses, If I were living in North Dakota driving 2 miles to an office job in the city 5W50 will not have been the oil of choice, so you adjust the oil to the needs, I'm sure the manufacturers choose a single oil for everybody because is simpler for regular owners and cheaper for dealers to have a single grade for service.

Shannow: Unless I have a multi million dollar budget for a racing program I'll trade drag for engine survival, I can always push the gas pedal a little further, I think you are with me at this, Right?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: jrustles
I challenge the next person who says "optimal" wrt viscosity, to qualify it.


Heavier than alcohol but lighter than honey? After reading pages of your posts I come away empty. Try taking a hard stand on something once in awhile.

I thought the newer lower viscosity base stocks can float a bearing better than an equivalent heavier ie. more viscous outdated base stock. That's why the new 0W-20 oils work so well. It's maddening to me when, instead of recognizing and appreciating new technology the old crew blames the government and CAFE for their perceived ills.

It's a free country. Use an "old mans" oil if you wish.

If oil is maintained at a reasonable temperature with a properly sized oil cooler, there would never be any need for a 30,40,50 or 60 weight oil. A heavy oil is a crutch for an improper design.

T














Turtlevette: You should contact Ford and make them aware that they choose the wrong oil for their top of the line, oil cooler equipped Mustang, explain them that 50 oil is outdated and the base stock thing, that it is 2014 and they shouldn't sell a car from showroom with semi-syn 5W50, or Mitsubishi or Subaru and the other's too, they seem too focused in the development of high stress engines and have no time to keep up with the newer base stock's, they need you, please help them....lot's of old men working there.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mene
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: jrustles
I challenge the next person who says "optimal" wrt viscosity, to qualify it.


Heavier than alcohol but lighter than honey? After reading pages of your posts I come away empty. Try taking a hard stand on something once in awhile.

I thought the newer lower viscosity base stocks can float a bearing better than an equivalent heavier ie. more viscous outdated base stock. That's why the new 0W-20 oils work so well. It's maddening to me when, instead of recognizing and appreciating new technology the old crew blames the government and CAFE for their perceived ills.

It's a free country. Use an "old mans" oil if you wish.

If oil is maintained at a reasonable temperature with a properly sized oil cooler, there would never be any need for a 30,40,50 or 60 weight oil. A heavy oil is a crutch for an improper design.

T














Turtlevette: You should contact Ford and make them aware that they choose the wrong oil for their top of the line, oil cooler equipped Mustang, explain them that 50 oil is outdated and the base stock thing, that it is 2014 and they shouldn't sell a car from showroom with semi-syn 5W50, or Mitsubishi or Subaru and the other's too, they seem too focused in the development of high stress engines and have no time to keep up with the newer base stock's, they need you, please help them....lot's of old men working there.


Yeah, his "old man" comment is a bit over used and of course intended as an insult as well. If he lasts long enough he'll get to be one some day, but who knows?

My car is spec'd for 40w and specifically for 15w-50 by TSB. So those 'old' guys at SRT just didn't get as smart as Ole TV did in his engineering classes either...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Thicker oil provides greater separation between the piston, rings and liner...period...and reduces the length of the swept area that is undergoing boundary/mixed lubrication.


I really don't think that's true. With the thicker oils the ring tends to push the oil instead of riding on the oil. Or else how do you explain as the oil is more viscous you have less consumption? Thick oil does not creep and flow into very small crevices. Who uses heavy motor oil as a penetrate? Nobody because it doesn't work. You have to thin it down with acetone. What does a splash pattern of thick oil look like vs thin oil. The thin oil goes everywhere. The side clearance of these newer engines are specified with a 20wt in mind. What happens when you have a thicker oil. You have less oil discharge from the journal. Less oil on the piston.

I postulate that thinner oil can flow under the ring better than thick oil providing better hydrodynamic mode protection. Totally opposite to what you are saying.

So we are at odds again? But you are the man because you can out link me. I'm still wanting to read some of your original material. If you are as accomplished as you say where are your papers and tech articles?
 
Originally Posted By: mene
Turtlevette: You should contact Ford and make them aware that they choose the wrong oil for their top of the line, oil cooler equipped Mustang, explain them that 50 oil is outdated and the base stock thing, that it is 2014 and they shouldn't sell a car from showroom with semi-syn 5W50,


Really? You are going to make that argument when the GT is specified at 0W-20? Most all their other engines are 0W-20. Even the trucks. How do you explain that?

I believe the top of the line is the Shelby GT 500. I'm not sure what they recommend in that one.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK turtlevette, it's that time in every thread where I say...."prove it"...using science that thinner oil "floats" a bearing better.
.


Originally Posted By: Clevy
K. I've gotta ask. How does thinner oil float a bearing better than its thicker counterpart all things being equal.
No need to dumb it down. I can keep up


If everything is equal it can't.

That's the whole point. A superior base stock can create a stronger film strength than an "ordinary" base stock. Ie a modern 0W-20 can provide better hydrodynamic lubrication than an old 10W-30 or 10W-40.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: mene
Turtlevette: You should contact Ford and make them aware that they choose the wrong oil for their top of the line, oil cooler equipped Mustang, explain them that 50 oil is outdated and the base stock thing, that it is 2014 and they shouldn't sell a car from showroom with semi-syn 5W50,


Really? You are going to make that argument when the GT is specified at 0W-20? Most all their other engines are 0W-20. Even the trucks. How do you explain that?

I believe the top of the line is the Shelby GT 500. I'm not sure what they recommend in that one.





5w-50. Same as the track pack equipped 5.0 engines.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
I might be the minority here but I don't feel there's a one size fits all when it comes to engine oil.


So true. Most people on here should have the sense to know this, one would hope. But it's probably not a concern or consideration for a large group of people puttering around in their stock, under warranty Yaris. Modern 0w20's are actually pretty decent oils too, requiring at times the most costly base oil blends- but any gear head needs/wants that margin of protection, when operating conditions change rapidly.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: mene
Turtlevette: You should contact Ford and make them aware that they choose the wrong oil for their top of the line, oil cooler equipped Mustang, explain them that 50 oil is outdated and the base stock thing, that it is 2014 and they shouldn't sell a car from showroom with semi-syn 5W50,


Really? You are going to make that argument when the GT is specified at 0W-20? Most all their other engines are 0W-20. Even the trucks. How do you explain that?

I believe the top of the line is the Shelby GT 500. I'm not sure what they recommend in that one.





It ain't 0w20, more like 5w50
wink.gif


Newer low-medium duty engine series are being designed with low viscosity oils in mind, with larger diameter bearings offering the higher bearing speeds to maintain a good Hydrodynamic effect, yet skinnier journals reducing the overall surface area while maintaining a similar rigidity, and wide-range high flow oil pumps to deal with all grades internationally from the thickest to the thinnest without suffering inadequate make up volume or choking on viscosity respectively. Aside from that, I'm yet to see evidence of other big design changes like majorly tightened clearances, they all seem to be rather consistent.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK turtlevette, it's that time in every thread where I say...."prove it"...using science that thinner oil "floats" a bearing better.
.


Originally Posted By: Clevy
K. I've gotta ask. How does thinner oil float a bearing better than its thicker counterpart all things being equal.
No need to dumb it down. I can keep up


If everything is equal it can't.

That's the whole point. A superior base stock can create a stronger film strength than an "ordinary" base stock. Ie a modern 0W-20 can provide better hydrodynamic lubrication than an old 10W-30 or 10W-40.

Where did you hear this or the information from which you concluded this?
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Where did you find M1 5W-50?
That's a grade of M1 that you don't typically find in the US.


It's sitting right in the oil racks of most NAPAs in this area, even on sale this month for $5.99/quart.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I really don't think that's true. With the thicker oils the ring tends to push the oil instead of riding on the oil. Or else how do you explain as the oil is more viscous you have less consumption? Thick oil does not creep and flow into very small crevices. Who uses heavy motor oil as a penetrate? Nobody because it doesn't work. You have to thin it down with acetone. What does a splash pattern of thick oil look like vs thin oil. The thin oil goes everywhere. The side clearance of these newer engines are specified with a 20wt in mind. What happens when you have a thicker oil. You have less oil discharge from the journal. Less oil on the piston.

I postulate that thinner oil can flow under the ring better than thick oil providing better hydrodynamic mode protection. Totally opposite to what you are saying.


Should be easy to prove, or support your argumenta, as opposed to feel and posit then...

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
So we are at odds again? But you are the man because you can out link me. I'm still wanting to read some of your original material. If you are as accomplished as you say where are your papers and tech articles?


As a part of your engineering degree, they taught you to source and interpret reference material...you have exactly the same opportunity to research, interpret and present logical arguments, but choose instead "syrup", "plastic", references to penetrating oil with regards to piston lubrication.

Your request is childish...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow

As a part of your engineering degree, they taught you to source and interpret reference material...you have exactly the same opportunity to research, interpret and present logical arguments, but choose instead "syrup", "plastic", references to penetrating oil with regards to piston lubrication.

Your request is childish...


I feel no obligation to provide any internet links to support my postulate and theories. In engineering school we are taught to form a postulate then prove it with our training. If we had to provide a "link" how would anything new be developed. Anyone can pretend to be some sort of expert by reading then regurgitating material.

I'd have more respect for you if you just say you don't have any original material and do not have an engineering degree. I suspect you are an old Westinghouse turbine inspection guy. You say in another thread your training was by some "clued up" guys. And then again you may work at a Jiffy Lube. Some people on the internet are very good at creating a façade.

Do you have training in fluid mechanics? If so, plastic state should not be a foreign term. Do you understand surface tension of a fluid any why that prevents high viscosity fluids from being able to creep into very small spaces? There's nothing wrong with using a penetrating oil as an example. Or compare oil viscosities to that of things people are familiar with.

I expect you to provide a number of non pertinent links now instead of making a well reasoned response based on your own knowledge. It's the pattern.

You made a bold statement that thicker oil is better. You prove that. How much thicker? You admit to using a can or 2 of STP in 20W-50 dyno and thinking that is the perfect oil.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Thicker oil provides greater separation between the piston, rings and liner...period...and reduces the length of the swept area that is undergoing boundary/mixed lubrication.


I postulate that thinner oil can flow under the ring better than thick oil providing better hydrodynamic mode protection. Totally opposite to what you are saying.



You forget.
Back in the "old man" days when they typically had thicker mineral oils, they developed the composite oil "scraper" ring of various designs to scrape the excess oil off the bore as the piston travelled downward in a typical 4 stroke motor.
The vast bulk of engines, haven't changed in basic design at all since the old man days, and neither has the ring architecture on the pistons.

Also there are excellent old man engine designs that are designed with an oil squirter on the thrust side of the Con rod, in order to deliberately increase the amount of oil shot up the bore on each upward stroke.
That surely blows a bit of a hole in your universal side clearance theories of splashing oil up the bore increasing oil consumption.


Seeing as the oil scraper ring architecture hasn't changed.
I put it to you, that your argument is flawed.
This is because the amount of oil that's left on the bore of the thicker oil is adequate to do its job in the vast majority of cases.
With no more actually being required for adequate lubrication, and no less being required for adequate ring sealing.
It gets a little more complicated when one factors in low tension rings into the equation of some engine designs.

Perhaps thinner oil can flow under the ring better. But I doubt it's of any benefit, and more of a liability in some ways.
Don't forget that it's not the only lubrication issue going on inside the engine, and there are areas that require superior lubrication than a thinner oil can conceivably provide with current technology. At a reasonable price.

I put it to you that most of the oil consumption with thinner oil is due in no small part to the increased volatility of the oil.
Not just because of the total amount of oil you claim that gets past the old man designed oil scraper rings currently utilized in your modern super engine.
What ever that is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
Low Kinematic high hths?
Replies
12
Views
2K
CR94
M
GM 6.0 Piston Slap, what oil?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
PontiacHO
S
Another oil from Valvoline…
9 10 11
Replies
217
Views
43K
Ronin73
A
Oil with best anti-wear for Chevy 3.6 timing chain protection?
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
JTK
C
Thick oils and VVT systems
2 3
Replies
47
Views
6K
53' Stude
Back
Top