Thinner oils and higher wear

[fourside]

Originally Posted By: Brigadier
Originally Posted By: fourside
Originally Posted By: Brigadier
I have noticed that on a thicker oil - T6 or Delo Synth 5W40, the engine in my Colorado which is spec'd for GM6094M 5W30, is much quieter at start up, especially the DOHC chain tensioner. I know that can't be, right? I am hearing things too?


You're certainly not a liar just because you've noticed 0w20-spec'd cars puffing blue smoke - the comment that you must be seeing things was surely a joke. That said, the main problem is just that we can't really learn much from looking at the average person's tailpipe. It has to be assumed that most of them don't really know how to take care of their cars regardless of what the manufacturer specifies. I've seen every type of car spec'd for a wide range of oils puffing blue smoke - it just doesn't tell me much.

Also, ironically, my car in the US is spec'd for 0w-20, and the ultra-thin JDM "0w-7.5" (estimated) stuff I put in it recently is actually running a little quieter/smoother if I must say. I'll be doing a UOA next month and we'll see how much damage I've done.

Well, if I misread someone's post, I apologize.

I do know that seeing blue smoke out of a tailpipe doesn't necessarily prove anything, which I indicated in my post. But, I was just struck on how many of these late model Japanese 20W spec'ed cars were doing this.


Yeah, who knows? I feel like I notice a lot of Euro cars doing the same thing, and as far as I know most of them aren't spec'd for 0w-20. I actually really haven't noticed what you have about the Japanese cars, but I'll keep an eye out. Neither one of us is lying!

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: fourside
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Originally Posted By: fourside
The "motor will outlast the rest of the car" thing doesn't apply here in California where we don't use road salt. Every car I know of that family or friends have gotten rid of due to problems were having mechanical problems, not problems with the structure of the car crumbling.

At any rate, I've had numerous cars that call for 5w-20 or 0w-20, I always run 0w-20 in all of them, and I've put on hundreds of thousands of miles with no problems with the motors. In fact, some of those were amongst the best-running and most reliable cars I've had. I don't believe I even had oil consumption issues with... any of them, come to think of it.

If a car car is designed to run on thin oil, give it thin oil. It will be fine. My newest Honda's L15B motor is actually designed to run on 0w-20 and even thinner - we're talking about stuff that may very well be 0w-7.5. I'll be doing a UOA on that in a month or so, and I'm not expecting to see anything scary.


America's average engine age is of what 12-15 years old? You're talking about new engines, that are allowed to run thinner oil specially beause of better filtration and the requisite to use a better base oil at least semisyn (see Dexos1 and 2), that won't make as much carbon and soot.
And,
Could you garantee that a one grade up on the thicker side oil wouldn't give a longer life to newer engines?


The problem with this argument is that it always ends up with a lot of people asking questions like yours above. No, I cannot guarantee that thicker oil wouldn't give an engine a longer life. No, you cannot guarantee that thinner oils will give an engine a shorter life. So where's this debate supposed to go?


Ok, I won't stretch my argments, and I take the above article as a Bow. But for me the tendence is to "people - you know who - saying to you like "F'up your engine to save gas and the environment".
Good for the world, that too many of us contribute conscientiously, not as braiwashed.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Ok, I won't stretch my argments, and I take the above article as a Bow. But for me the tendence is to "people - you know who - saying to you like "F'up your engine to save gas and the environment".
Good for the world, that too many of us contribute conscientiously, not as braiwashed.


just like the people who roll some coal...

CAFE is fiscal responsibility. It is fuel economy, not efficiency or an act of environmentalism. The point is to use less fuel so we are not handing Benjamins to countries that we don't like a lot. So that when those countries cut of the taps, our economy does not tank because we want our engines big, weak, and thirsty. Lower viscosity oil is the the private-sector solution (ie a cheap way) for them to meet a need. The other solution is to jack-up the fuel tax

Lets bump up the Federal tax from 19 cents to a buck fifty...and then sit-back and watch the 0wXX fly off the shelf.

With a fleet, you bet I am going to go as thin as possible. I can't say than any of my vehicles running 5w20 or less are going any long-term harm that will cause premature engine failure. However, when you are running vehicles 14.5 hours a day & non-stop, yeah, fuel economy becomes important.

 

[Brigadier]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Ok, I won't stretch my argments, and I take the above article as a Bow. But for me the tendence is to "people - you know who - saying to you like "F'up your engine to save gas and the environment".
Good for the world, that too many of us contribute conscientiously, not as braiwashed.


just like the people who roll some coal...

CAFE is fiscal responsibility. It is fuel economy, not efficiency or an act of environmentalism. The point is to use less fuel so we are not handing Benjamins to countries that we don't like a lot. So that when those countries cut of the taps, our economy does not tank because we want our engines big, weak, and thirsty. Lower viscosity oil is the the private-sector solution (ie a cheap way) for them to meet a need. The other solution is to jack-up the fuel tax

Lets bump up the Federal tax from 19 cents to a buck fifty...and then sit-back and watch the 0wXX fly off the shelf.



Oh Puleeeeze. That is more a function of America hating politicians not allowing us to be energy independent that ruining your engine with 0W0 oil.

 

[Gokhan]

The whole question of thin or thick versus wear is a trick question. You cannot answer it without specifying which engine you are talking about. There are many engines that are perfectly OK with 0W-20 and you won't see any significant benefit in terms of wear by going to thicker oils. There are engines that would be perfectly OK with 0W-16. However, there are also engines for which even 10W-30 is too thin.

So, unless you specify the engine, the question of thin or thick makes little sense.

 

[Kamele0N]

We don't need to specify the engine....because americans will put 0Wxx even in WW2 Willys Jeep

 

[ChrisD46]

Hyundai manual for '10 Elantra says 5W20 preferred and ok to run 5W30 in higher ambient temps (summer) . Regarding the thin vs. thicker oil argument , I split the difference and run 5W20 from Oct. - April and 5W30 from May - Sept. Not sure if it helps but probably doesn't hurt ...

 

[Brigadier]

My wife's 2013 Mazda 3 2.0 SkyActiv manual says 0W20 for USA, 5W30 for Mexico. There is no EPA in Mexico. So I run 5W30 in hers. It's mot like it is under warranty anyway. But, I would like to see Mazda try and deny warranty work based on that.

Of course, it also says I never have to change the fluid in the auto transmission. At least not until the warranty period is over anyway.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Kamele0N
We don't need to specify the engine....because americans will put 0Wxx even in WW2 Willys Jeep

And at least one Canadian. LOL

 

[kschachn]

What would be wrong with 0W-40?

Originally Posted By: Kamele0N
We don't need to specify the engine....because americans will put 0Wxx even in WW2 Willys Jeep

 

[Brigadier]

Originally Posted By: Kamele0N
We don't need to specify the engine....because americans will put 0Wxx even in WW2 Willys Jeep

I have no problem with the 0WXX, it's the right side of the W that needs to be 30 or better, IMHO.

 

[Ram01]

When in doubt STP oil treatment is alway there to thicken things up and provide the protection your engine needs

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: buster
For startup wear, lower viscoisty is better. For high speed driving or conditions where fuel dilution is an issue, a higher viscosity may be preferred.


It seems pretty well accepted that most wear occurs at start up. And cold weather starts with thinner oil are clearly easier. Fuel economy on a cold start with thin oil is marginally improved. But I've not seen a single thing that indicates cold start wear is any better with a thinner oil.

Especially since the thicker oil will often come to temp faster.

 

[davison0976]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Originally Posted By: buster
For startup wear, lower viscoisty is better. For high speed driving or conditions where fuel dilution is an issue, a higher viscosity may be preferred.


It seems pretty well accepted that most wear occurs at start up. And cold weather starts with thinner oil are clearly easier. Fuel economy on a cold start with thin oil is marginally improved. But I've not seen a single thing that indicates cold start wear is any better with a thinner oil.

Especially since the thicker oil will often come to temp faster.


Thicker oil also doesn't drain from components as much providing better immediate lubrication from the moment you start cranking cold engine.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: buster
For startup wear, lower viscoisty is better.


buster, you are going to have to provide evidence for that claim.

e.g. how thinner oils protect better in industry standard warmup wear tests like the sequence IVA...

not just the Doc's and CATERHAM's koolaid...some evidence.

 

[Merkava_4]

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oil

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: davison0976
Thicker oil also doesn't drain from components as much providing better immediate lubrication from the moment you start cranking cold engine.


^^This

 

[fourside]

Originally Posted By: davison0976
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Originally Posted By: buster
For startup wear, lower viscoisty is better. For high speed driving or conditions where fuel dilution is an issue, a higher viscosity may be preferred.


It seems pretty well accepted that most wear occurs at start up. And cold weather starts with thinner oil are clearly easier. Fuel economy on a cold start with thin oil is marginally improved. But I've not seen a single thing that indicates cold start wear is any better with a thinner oil.

Especially since the thicker oil will often come to temp faster.


Thicker oil also doesn't drain from components as much providing better immediate lubrication from the moment you start cranking cold engine.


This makes intuitive sense, but has this been proven? Genuinely curious. I've seen the argument before.

 

[Pontual]

I can't get a pace with this thread anymore ...

Well that scalated quickly!

But cushion for dirty particles is important, ohw, come on!!

 

[Merkava_4]

I was hoping more guys would just simply comment on what was written in the article.