Using Heavier Weight Oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
"1sttruck, how can you say that what goes on in aviation engines has any relevance to what happens in cars? Those oils must work under an entirely different set of circumstances than car oils. Not to mention the engines are low rpm, constant load.

Ever taken apart a Continental? "

No. The more modern air cooled small aircraft engines that I've seen look like bigger brothers to the VW, Porsche and Corvair air cooled opposed 4 and 6 cyl engines, and I have rebuilt a few VWs. Wear points in engines are similar, as they have in common journal bearings, valve trains, piston/ring/liner assemblies, and such. As I recall from some of the older VW specs in artic conditions one could have ended up with a 500 mile oil change interval, which at 25 mph on snow and ice means about a 20 hr oil change interval. Does that sound at all similar to aircraft engines that you're talking about ?

As far as more modern car engines go the 3L V6 in our Taurus in OD is running about 2000 rpm at 60 mph, obviously less at 55 mph, with 6 people, a full trunk, headwind, going up a grade, and the air on. Is that a load and rpm at all similar to smaller aircraft ? My truck is rated for about a 12k load when towing, and it's pulling about 2000 rpm at 65 mph.Being a water cooled engine the Taurus and Cummins can be set up with tighter tolerances in some areas than an air cooled engine, and before CAFE concerns it appears that at one time 40 weight oils may have been used in the Taurus, based upon references to the use of 'motor oil' for some assembly procedures. Single or multiple grade 50 weight oils seem common in aircraft, which seem similar to PCMO oils like 10W40 or 5W40, or HDEOs used in my truck like 15W40 or 5W40, 'ashless' requirements aside.

Finally, does a ball on a rotating disc have any relevance to a car engine or heavy duty diesel ? Most would say no, but there are lots of different bench top testers for various aspects of oil. See below.

http://iantaylor.org.uk/papers/Esslingen2002.pdf

A Screener Test for the Fuel Economy Potential of Engine Lubricants

SUMMARY A useful screener test for identifying engine lubricants which have good fuel economy potential is described. The screener test involves measuring the Stribeck curve of the fresh oil in a PCS Mini-Traction Machine, using operating conditions that mimic those found in the Sequence VI-B engine test. The lubricant is then oxidised in a Sequence IIIE laboratory screener test for a specified length of time, during which the viscosity increase of the lubricant is monitored (the TBN and TAN can also be monitored if required). The oxidised lubricant is then re-tested in the Mini-Traction Machine. Results are presented for a range of lubricants, including a 0W/20 fuel economy lubricant containining a Molybdenum based friction modifier. Results are also presented showing how the phosphorus content of the lubricant affects the Stribeck curve, and for heavy duty diesel engine lubricants showing how the soot content of the oil also affects the measured Stribeck curve.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
As far as more modern car engines go the 3L V6 in our Taurus in OD is running about 2000 rpm at 60 mph, obviously less at 55 mph, with 6 people, a full trunk, headwind, going up a grade, and the air on. Is that a load and rpm at all similar to smaller aircraft?

Sure. If you have to go uphill both ways.
lol.gif
 
Let's see, yup, aircraft engines work at dramatically lower rpm while producing much more hp as aircraft are so much heavier than cars. They are so different that instead of being called engines they are called 'injuns', where one uses 'earl' to keep the 'pitons' and 'reens' from 'ware'n uht'.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_150

Crew: 1
Capacity: 1 passenger
Useful load: 489 lb (222 kg)
Maximum gross takeoff weight: 1,600 lb (726 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Continental O-200A , 100 hp @ 2300 RPM (75 kW)
 
Water cooled engines used in cars seem to typically considered too heavy for use in aircraft.

http://home.adelphia.net/~aeroengine/Porsche.html

Porsche engines are manufactured by Dr.-Ing h.c. F. Porsche K.-G., originally in Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen, Germany and later in Weissach, Germany. The firm is well-known, of course, for its sports and racing cars. In the 1950s, European builders of light aircraft began adapting the air-cooled Porsche horizontally-opposed auto engines to these aircraft, just as they did with the Volkswagen engines that had a similar design origin. Porsche cooperated with some of these builders by factory-built engines derived from their auto engines, whereas VW did not. Porsche built their first generation aircraft engines for about six years (1957-1963). Then, in the 1980s, Porsche again derived aircraft engines from their auto-engine family and are said to have spent $75 million dollars to do so, only to withdraw from the market in about 1991 during the downswing in aircraft sales resulting from liability issues.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Corvair_engine

Aircraft hobbyists and small volume builders, perhaps seeing the Corvair engine's similarity to Lycoming aircraft engines, very quickly began a cottage industry of modifying Corvair engines for aircraft use, which continues to this day.
 
So.
In my opinion, 20 weight and thin 30 weights are virtually identical and interchangable. I wonder about the 20 weight recommedation though. If 20 weight oils do EVERYTHING as described, why don't all (or nearly all) automakers recommend them? Why do SOME new modern engines, like Honda 2.4 NOT recommend them (in USA)? Why does the HP verion of my Honda 2.0 NOT call for 20 weight like mine does? The big question is yet unanswered, why is thicker oil 5w-30 and 10w-40 the recommendation in UK for the same engine I have here? I understand the newer formulations allow for thinner oil in the same apps. To me, that just means you DON'T have to do the "grade higher" selection... that the factory recommendations are ok, but 20 weight...isn't that a "grade lower" application of the same principle? The opposite of common practice?
 
quote:

Originally posted by Auto-Union:
In my opinion, 20 weight and thin 30 weights are virtually identical and interchangable. I wonder about the 20 weight recommedation though. If 20 weight oils do EVERYTHING as described, why don't all (or nearly all) automakers recommend them?

Many are beginning to. Chrysler has begun to recommend it in some engines. Mazda already does. IIRC, Hyundai can be added to the list. Toyota wants to make the move:

http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000463014.cfm?x=b11,0,w

Manufacturers usually do extensive durability testing before specing an oil. I suspect GM wasn't ready to make the commitment given the flack they endured when they moved to 5w30s. Maybe they decided to let Ford blaze the trail this go around.

quote:

Originally posted by Auto-Union:
Why do SOME new modern engines, like Honda 2.4 NOT recommend them (in USA)? Why does the HP verion of my Honda 2.0 NOT call for 20 weight like mine does?

Differences in engines. Forged pistons, higher redline, etc, etc? Not all 2.4s and 2.0s are identical. And you'll find it unlikely anyone recommending 5w20s for diesels anytime soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Auto-Union:
The big question is yet unanswered, why is thicker oil 5w-30 and 10w-40 the recommendation in UK for the same engine I have here?

Simply because of availability, culture, marketing. Read the Toyota article above. They'd also have to compete with shelf space for the myriad of European specilized oils: Mercedes MB 229.5, BMW Longlife 01, Porsche Approved, VW 502.00/505.00/503.01, ACEA A3, B3/B4, etc. Most German made cars would probably croak on 5w20.
 
Fair enough. Thanks. How is it though, with state-of-the-art oil formualtion (inc no price constraints), metalurgy and design that "culture" is the deciding factor in Europe? We have a thick oil culture here in good olde USA, fer sure! I mean, would we have not seen more of the low-HT/HS apps in Europe rather than less or even none as Audi has pulled back from the whole SLX 1 thing?
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Most German made cars would probably croak on 5w20.

I don't know. Ali's Maybach seems to be doing okay on 5w20.
burnout.gif
 
Good point G-Man II. I'm only only relating my experience with 'Progess through Technology' vehicles, what other relate as to their need for high viscosity oils, the plethora of manufacturer specifications, and ACEA's fascination with HTHS numbers. AEHass is the only person I know that has the cojones to perform such a test on a high dollar vehicle like that. Any details on the engine that would make it different from the run of the mill Deutchland engine?
 
"Any details on the engine that would make it different from the run of the mill Deutchland engine?"

I've been wondering about this myself. People keep making statements about how German cars need higher viscosity oils and how they would "croak" on lighter oils. But what is it about German engines that makes them any different from Japanese or American engines? Do they have different bearing tolerances, or anything else that might at least point to the need for a thicker oil?
 
Blame the prediluvial German engine design and manufacturing techniques. Wooden pistons and handcarved cam lobes demand special oil requirements!
wink.gif
 
German engineering prowess notwithstanding, the Germans in my family are some of the most stubborn people I've ever met, even in the face of good UOAs. It was hard enough getting the typical USA mutt to run 5w-30 a little more than a decade ago...5w-20 is turning out to be similarly embraced.

It's bad when you think you know everything, and then someone changes the facts. The fact is the SM, GL-4 rated 5w-20's perform great in the cars that spec it, AND FURTHERMORE, in many cars that specify higher viscosities. Just go peruse the UOAs to see proof.
 
I thought that looked wrong when I wrote it, GFFFFFFFFF-4, not GL. Sorry!

Apple doesn't fall far from the horse? Never heard that mixed metaphor before...I like it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top