Thick oil, thin oil piston wear

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
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.









Engineering school?
Wouldn't that be college or university. I went to Kelsey for my apprenticeship. Its a college.
I've never heard of acquiring an engineering degree from an engineering school.
Exactly which engineering school did you go to. And what type of engineering school is it.

You're certainly correct on one thing,that people can invent themselves to be whatever in the Internet.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Ducman
Perhaps thinner oil can flow under the ring better.


We agree on that.

Originally Posted By: Ducman
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.


Do you agree that different fluids of the same viscosity can have differing film strengths? That's already been proven with the wear test machines. So a 20wt can perform on par with a 30wt. yes or no?

Originally Posted By: Ducman
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.

So you're saying it evaporates. I think many here will disagree with that.

 

[mene]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette




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





Take a guess!

 

[mene]

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.



Again all that sounds logical the same as "the earth is flat" but it isn't so, yes the thinner oil will get into more crevices and all but it is pointless if it can't separate the parts because it doesn't have the film strength, about oil splashing the pistons and all that well the case is when an engine needs extra oiling for cooling con rods passages are used like it was written before or "oil squirters" are fitted to the block. Now an engine is made of many many parts and rarely the piston rings are the weak link needing the most attention from the lubrication standpoint, in fact most of the time engines die from lube problems at the cam/cams, followers or bearings, exactly where thicker oils are of the most use. If an engine was designed for 20 weight oil great!, but that doesn't mean that the oil is the reason, even then you can look around and find out that in most of the rest of the world the same engines made in the same plants fitted to the same cars are specified for the next thickest viscosity or even more, specially in places were people expect their cars to last a long time like in Europe (I know, the "old continent" perhaps full of old people who knows) or in Australia where the cars have to survive very hot environments. I think shannow, ducman and clevy have explained best; it is wise to try to see things with a different set of glasses once in awhile.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
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.

A postulate is an axiom, like xy=yx, that cannot be proven by a theorem. You silly engineers.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: mene

I think shannow, ducman and clevy have explained best; it is wise to try to see things with a different set of glasses once in awhile.


I'm willing to listen to others and change my viewpoint. I've gone from a thicker to thinner bias since joining this site. There are posters such as Caterham that make very good cases but get shouted down by the old school thick oil crowd.

I've come to believe that German Castrol is too thick for my Mustang. It does not consume any detectable amount of oil and that worries me. I'm thinking about dumping a few quarts and adding in 0W-20 to thin it down.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: mene
Originally Posted By: turtlevette




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





Take a guess!



So if 50wt is good in a 650hp blown stang then It must be great for your minivan?

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted By: JAG
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?

So, what is your answer, turtlevette?

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: JAG
Originally Posted By: JAG
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?

So, what is your answer, turtlevette?


between my ears.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: mene

I think shannow, ducman and clevy have explained best; it is wise to try to see things with a different set of glasses once in awhile.


I'm willing to listen to others and change my viewpoint. I've gone from a thicker to thinner bias since joining this site. There are posters such as Caterham that make very good cases but get shouted down by the old school thick oil crowd.

I've come to believe that German Castrol is too thick for my Mustang. It does not consume any detectable amount of oil and that worries me. I'm thinking about dumping a few quarts and adding in 0W-20 to thin it down.




Caterham makes very good points and I've learned a lot from him. In fact it's because of him why I began to use and continue to use 20 grades in various applications.
I used m1 5w-20 in my 88 5.0 250000km mustang for an interval. I was impressed by how much quicker the engine revved and it felt peppier right off idle.
So yes caterham does contribute a lot for the use of thinner oils,and his ponys make sense.

 

[JAG]

That's really lame. I don't believe that you are an engineer. I can often spot an engineer or scientist based on their posts. Those characteristic qualities are lacking in yours. I did get an answer like I expected.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do you agree that different fluids of the same viscosity can have differing film strengths? That's already been proven with the wear test machines. So a 20wt can perform on par with a 30wt. yes or no?


An oil needs more than film strength, it also needs to take up space; it can't take up space if it's too thin.

 

[turtlevette]

Looks like thick/thin is a regularly occurring debate,

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2808563/1

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Thicker oil is superior to thinner oil. There, I said it. Nobody else has the guts to say it.

Shannow already said it, but I do note he did NOT state that it changes the ring end gap!


Note also that I said that once you got clear of boundary lubrication, thicker only made the separation thickness more and increased drag without further reducing wear.

Diesel engine designers are trying to reduce the viscosity artificially mid stroke while increasing it at the ends to reduce drag while still providing protection.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: JAG
That's really lame. I don't believe that you are an engineer. I can often spot an engineer or scientist based on their posts. Those characteristic qualities are lacking in yours. I did get an answer like I expected.


You are one among many here. Good luck butting heads with a Turtle!

 

[mene]

So if 50wt is good in a 650hp blown stang then It must be great for your minivan?


Well yes!, since the factory manual gives 50 weight as an option. But "you" can't handle a 650HP blown stang not using 0W20 and back specified to 0W16 as soon as is it available while a lot of us can flex and decide to use the proper viscosity according to the need of the situation.

Regarding Catherham, like I said before, I understood and agree with thin oil theory and I have also learned many things from him and definitely think his contributions to the forum are priceless, but there is no single answer for every case, for example he recommended me to go even lower in viscosity because the engine was reaching pressure relief before max. recommended RPM's meaning that I could use an even thinner oil, very sound theory and might be right in 99.99% of cases but in "this" case the engine was noisy, vibrating more and wear rate increased more than 50% noted by the same pressure gauge, as soon as I went up to 40 weight (still lower than 50 may I add) oil the engine quieted down, vibrations were gone and rate of wear went back to where it was before. So, give me a logical explanation of "why" this happened, a real explanation, not " the theory is that and that's it", before Galileo Galilei the earth was flat and that's it, at least for Europe at the time.

 

[jrustles]

imagine if this debate was about prophylactics

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Looks like thick/thin is a regularly occurring debate,

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2808563/1


Classic thread. I love how so many people on the other side of the planet are telling the OP that his obs/ are wrong and that he's just imagining it and can't really accurately judge how much blowby he's having, even after OP says that he goes foot-to-the-floor at least once a month for hours.

12K, 0w20, small economy engine and hours of top speed driving, really? You don't see anything quite wrong with that because 0w20 works fine for your trips to King Soopers?

Instead the thread suddenly derails into how stupid, ignorant old timer troglodytes are trying to keep progress down because the thinnest stuff on the shelf isn't their panacea.

Sheesh.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
ignorant old timer troglodytes are trying to keep progress down


You mean old man's oil?

 

[mene]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: jrustles
ignorant old timer troglodytes are trying to keep progress down


You mean old man's oil?



Yes, the old men at Ford and Chrysler. Where is my explanation by the way?