No new car warranty is predicated on a particular oil grade. Grades are recommendations, not requirements. The warranty is predicated on an oil that causes damage, and no oil with a somewhat higher HT/HS will damage an engine. One with a lower HT/HS can cause damage but not the other way around.
when there is no vw 508…
- Thread starter jstert
- Start date
Of course. Some people think that physics does not apply to motor oils.
I would’ve done nothing. Added nothing. That’s in the acceptable range.
I certainly wouldn’t have criticized my son on that basis. He was operating the car in accordance with the owner‘s manual.
You’re the one with unique requirements. The one who feels your son has failed to meet your expectations for oil level.
This really isn’t about oil, is it?
That sums up things.
No he's not at least in using 504/502 in a 508 spec engine because it is perceived better. When there are teardowns with bearing specs and UOA's to prove continuing damage we can have that discussion. Those are the actual facts. The whole CAFE is all about fuel economy and no regard to engine wear is malarky plain & simple.
No one is talking about using a 508 oil where 502/504 is spec'd except you.
What consensus is that? That half of us are scared to death about using xw20 and the other half isn't?
Wear is less with a higher HT/HS oil, plain and simple. This has been discussed here multiple times and the technical papers have been referenced. A UOA is nowhere near the tool for measuring such a thing, and the papers are based on teardowns. Wear is prevented by keeping parts separated and that is what the oil film does. Reduce the film thickness and wear increases.
CAFE is only about fuel economy and nothing else. There are no advantages to lower HT/HS oils except fuel economy. You know what CAFE stands for right?
You just implied it and it's always the implication that people skirt around. Using the proper oil spec'd will cause more wear and harm. SO since we are being "factual" where are the facts for that?
Every engine has cold oil at startup but during operational temp they expect a certain viscosity. Changing the oil weight can affect that with certain engines it can be harmful.
Where is the factual basis for saying 508 isn't appropriate for the engines it is spec'd for. That is exactly what was implied and continues to be played off as a fact. It's only an opinion and always has been.
No one says that 508 00 isn't appropriate or acceptable. We are saying that in terms of wear 504 00 is better due to the higher HT/HS. This isn't anyone's opinion it is basic physics.
And yes changing the oil "weight" can indeed be harmful. If the HT/HS too low then metal-to-metal contact will occur frequently enough to cause unacceptable wear. But no engine is harmed by an oil with a somewhat higher HT/HS. Increased MOFT protects, not the other way around.
SO you are saying prolonged wear, charted over a period of time can't be used to determine how well an oil is doing in a specific application isn't useful, cool? We can only tear down and check clearances after every oil change to be sure, Ok thanks. The obsession with HT/HS when it is only one of many factors is a little asinine. I mean let's all run straight weights at that point since they tend to be the most shear stable.
Yes it's about fuel economy without sacrificing longevity. The oil is spec'd for a certain application and does it well. You have your mind made up on the subject and any further discussion is just a brick wall I rather not bang my head against.
It's not in a 508 application because there is no evidence to support that.
Nope not a $30 spectrographic analysis. For one thing it is completely uncontrolled. There are other problems past that but this one gets you off the bat. You cannot make relative quality/wear distinctions between oils using such an imprecise method.
There is an ASTM method of measuring wear between oils and it surely isn't a Blackstone UOA.
I have no mind made up, I'm just listing facts. No head banging required.
You need to brush up on a bit of physics and the mechanism of wear in an engine. There is ample evidence (much has been shown here) illustrating a direct link between HT/ HS and wear.
They are the most shear stable. And if the expected starting temperatures are acceptable then a monograde oil is indeed a better choice if your engine has a problem with mechanical shear. Most do not have a problem with it however, nor is it the subject of this discussion.
Just to kinda throw it out there.
If Audi and Porsche thought that 508/509 could protect as well as a 504/507 or 511 oil then they would be using it in cars like the RSQ8, R8 V10+ and RS5
They have chosen when developing the later variants of these engines or in some cases the performance versions (3.0 to 2.9 V6 turbo) to stick to higher HTHS oils.
The TTRS was put on a sale stop back in I think 2018 just before launch as its emissions were going to cause problems with the companies overall allowed output per vehicle.
Surely if 508 was that good they would have used it.
What I would say is it is suitable for its application in engines like the 1.0 TFSI and 1.5 TFSI that were designed around the use of 508 unlike the 2.0 TFSI that has had many engines spec changed from 504/507 to 508.
I would not be using 508 in a S3 for example that had a factory fill originally of 504.
I do think as far as 0W20 oils go the 508 is one of the better specs so for people who want a 0w20 oil it’s a good one to shop for.
If Audi and Porsche thought that 508/509 could protect as well as a 504/507 or 511 oil then they would be using it in cars like the RSQ8, R8 V10+ and RS5
They have chosen when developing the later variants of these engines or in some cases the performance versions (3.0 to 2.9 V6 turbo) to stick to higher HTHS oils.
The TTRS was put on a sale stop back in I think 2018 just before launch as its emissions were going to cause problems with the companies overall allowed output per vehicle.
Surely if 508 was that good they would have used it.
What I would say is it is suitable for its application in engines like the 1.0 TFSI and 1.5 TFSI that were designed around the use of 508 unlike the 2.0 TFSI that has had many engines spec changed from 504/507 to 508.
I would not be using 508 in a S3 for example that had a factory fill originally of 504.
I do think as far as 0W20 oils go the 508 is one of the better specs so for people who want a 0w20 oil it’s a good one to shop for.
Ya but comparing say a stressed, high revving, V10 to that of a farm tractorish 2.0, clearly different oil specifications are going to be needed.
The design of the 2.0 has also changed over the years.
Saying a 504 would do better in the same application a 508 is called for is just conjecture.
That tractor engine can make more horsepower per litre than the v10 so there you go.
You clearly want to push your point of view but won’t listen to others.
You clearly want to push your point of view but won’t listen to others.
Except for the fact that VW changed the oil specification for an engine designed for a minimum HTHS of 3.5. It is a calculation! Whether 0W20 will exert enough damage to the engine before the average owner ditches the vehicle.
It really did not. VW updated certain parts, for example, PCV, add certain things to bump power, or increase economy. But the basic architecture of an engine stayed the same.
Plus, we come back to that, thick oil is not an issue generally.
The reason why VW did not introduce a new engine is a cost-benefit analysis that is driven by "diesel gate. VW switched many suppliers to save money. For example, they switched many applications from Brembo calipers to Akebono (Porsche stayed with Brembo). Their calculation is that EA888 can carry them over to the point when EV's will rule the world. They shelled out 42 billion dollars for "dieselgate" and the lack of new engines is a consequence of that. But they still have to meet CAFE, hence, 0W20, etc, etc.
Hp/l is not metric you think it is. I'm certainly not bragging about it. That's like saying my old 2.5l I5 Rabbit had half a Lamborghini V10.
