Frankenjug 5qt

[Shannow]

I trust the engineers...it's what I do.

Every engineering decision is a compromise, and takes into account

When they install systems that cut the power of the engine to ensure that they don't get into excessive and adverse wear from oil that's excessiveley thinned due to work, I trust that they are doing that now for a purpose, not for giggles, and that they see it as necessary in the operating environment in which they now find themselves...they are purposely introducing another level of complexity. Nobody takes that lightly.

 

[Apollo14]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
When they install systems that cut the power of the engine to ensure that they don't get into excessive and adverse wear from oil that's excessiveley thinned due to work, I trust that they are doing that now for a purpose, not for giggles, and that they see it as necessary in the operating environment in which they now find themselves...they are purposely introducing another level of complexity. Nobody takes that lightly.



What percentage of vehicles would you say have these systems?

 

[chrisri]

Originally Posted By: Apollo14
Very good questions.[size:8pt][/size]

However, we all know that reducing viscosity has fuel efficiency as a major driver. What we don't know is how much extra wear it creates, how many miles until that wear translates into reduced fuel and oil efficiency (which could defeat the intended purpose of thinner oil), how much less we expect an engine to last and how that all compares against the thicker alternative.

I read that the Daimler now see thinner oil as inevitable for their engines also. So how much will they be compromising by going from 40 to 30?

None of this matters without hard facts. The engineers determined that reducing viscosity was safe, and the ultimate test ie real world usage proved that it was.

So the question is, now that argument is over, what do the numbers show as a result of moving from 30 to 20, and do they match what was expected?

And if they do, then you have even more reason to trust the engineers as they determine exactly what it would mean if you move from 20 to 16.


Keep in mind that Euro 5w30 that is commonly used here for the past 5-6 years have HTHS greater then 3.5, and basically have nothing in common with ILSAC oils. These grades (0w20) are compromises between fuel economy and engine durability. For cold areas as Canada it will work great, but in wormer climate is just compromise. I see here people are saying oil temp do not change in respect to outside temp., but this is true only under normal conditions. When you run your car hard in summer ,oil temp. will be greater even with oil cooler and heat exchanger and this is when ticker oil is beneficial.

 

[HKPolice]

Same arguments again & again. I can see why no oil engineers post in this forum, they must get tired of repeating themselves every week.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

If thinner oils mean that the engines and cars wear out at closer to the same time, not only is that fuel efficient, it makes more sense in the overall life of a vehicle.

People just have to realise that compromise is real, makes sense, and that 20s aren't there to make your engine last an extra 0.5 vehicle lifetime.


Exactly, it's not a difficult concept to grasp.


Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

When a manufacturer spec's a 20 grade oil particularly a high VI synthetic 0W-20 over a cheap heavier dino it's all about maximizing engine efficiency


Agreed.

Quote:

and minimizing engine wear when it's most likely to occur.


CITATION PLEASE!


Originally Posted By: Apollo14
I read that the Daimler now see thinner oil as inevitable for their engines also. So how much will they be compromising by going from 40 to 30?


Every manufacturer is heading there. It's a roll-out IMO. You first start with the econo-cars, in the laziest, most relaxed motoring market on the planet as was the case with 5w20 well over a decade ago.

The 0W component only indicates a higher VI fluid, with more advanced "synthetic-enhanced" chemistry, but being a Higher VI 20 grade, the 0W20 inherits it's VI on the cold side obviously, because a cold engine with cold oil is the worse case scenario from a fuel consumption perspective- it's a 'gram strategy' for cumulative effect (fleet-wide increase in FE). I have yet to read from any official source that warm-up wear is in any way a design objective.


Quote:

None of this matters without hard facts. The engineers determined that reducing viscosity was safe, and the ultimate test ie real world usage proved that it was.


Well, the engineers decided that reducing viscosity is 'safe' (see: acceptable) but only in product destined to certain markets. Clearly, other more demanding motoring markets have different advice from the engineers, despite these international markets having already begun imposing CAFE-like targets.

And thus, the 0W20s in Europe's future will undoubtedly start off WAY more advanced than the fluids from our "experiment" in North America with the switch to 20 grades. Does anyone remember the first 0W20s and 0w30s? Horrible stuff.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Apollo14
Originally Posted By: Shannow
When they install systems that cut the power of the engine to ensure that they don't get into excessive and adverse wear from oil that's excessiveley thinned due to work, I trust that they are doing that now for a purpose, not for giggles, and that they see it as necessary in the operating environment in which they now find themselves...they are purposely introducing another level of complexity. Nobody takes that lightly.



What percentage of vehicles would you say have these systems?

I'd say virtually all manufacturers have electronic safety management systems in place today regardless of what oil grade is specified. Just another reason to run the lightest oil the OEMs specify even for extreme usage. There is no lubrication advantage in running anything heavier, just disadvantages.
And theses safety systems are not triggered easily even during track day events with some sports cars spec'd for the 20 grade as some members have learned.

You would think that would put a final nail in the coffin to the fallacy that running a spec' 20 grade oil will somehow shorten maximum engine life but some simply refuse to accept it.
It's a bit like trying to convince someone who insists on wearing both belt and suspenders even with a properly sized waistband that's it's okay, one or the other is sufficient insurance to prevent your pants from falling down. It's equally irrational.

 

[travlnman]

My 2010 F150 gets the Frankenbrew (jug) treatment every oil change. Either I have a random quart or two left from another vehicle oil change, or I have built up an entire 5+ qts of various oils left over for the same reason. This is what my truck gets, and it is spotless on the inside. Granted, I do lots of driving (153k in 3 1/2 yrs) but I let the truck tell me when to change, usually about 7500, and I buy what ever name brand is on sale and quality filter. Have used syn, blend, conventional in all vehicles so my brew is a little of all . I say use with confidence, nothing to worry about.

 

[HKPolice]

Markets outside of North America and with hotter climates spec heavier oils because 0w20 is nearly impossible to find locally. It's about specing what is readily available in their market. It has NOTHING to do with heavier oils being able to protect better under normal conditions.

There was even a campaign in Asia by Toyota to get people to switch over to lighter viscosity oils. The standard in Asia used to be 20w50 and even 10w30 was hard to find. Asia has NO CAFE STANDARDS, so why would Toyota bother? Read the article yourself: http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000463014.cfm?x=b11,0,w

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: Shannow

If thinner oils mean that the engines and cars wear out at closer to the same time, not only is that fuel efficient, it makes more sense in the overall life of a vehicle.

People just have to realise that compromise is real, makes sense, and that 20s aren't there to make your engine last an extra 0.5 vehicle lifetime.


Exactly, it's not a difficult concept to grasp.


Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

When a manufacturer spec's a 20 grade oil particularly a high VI synthetic 0W-20 over a cheap heavier dino it's all about maximizing engine efficiency


Agreed.

Quote:

and minimizing engine wear when it's most likely to occur.


CITATION PLEASE!


Originally Posted By: Apollo14
I read that the Daimler now see thinner oil as inevitable for their engines also. So how much will they be compromising by going from 40 to 30?


Every manufacturer is heading there. It's a roll-out IMO. You first start with the econo-cars, in the laziest, most relaxed motoring market on the planet as was the case with 5w20 well over a decade ago.

The 0W component only indicates a higher VI fluid, with more advanced "synthetic-enhanced" chemistry, but being a Higher VI 20 grade, the 0W20 inherits it's VI on the cold side obviously, because a cold engine with cold oil is the worse case scenario from a fuel consumption perspective- it's a 'gram strategy' for cumulative effect (fleet-wide increase in FE). I have yet to read from any official source that warm-up wear is in any way a design objective.


Quote:

None of this matters without hard facts. The engineers determined that reducing viscosity was safe, and the ultimate test ie real world usage proved that it was.


Well, the engineers decided that reducing viscosity is 'safe' (see: acceptable) but only in product destined to certain markets. Clearly, other more demanding motoring markets have different advice from the engineers, despite these international markets having already begun imposing CAFE-like targets.

And thus, the 0W20s in Europe's future will undoubtedly start off WAY more advanced than the fluids from our "experiment" in North America with the switch to 20 grades. Does anyone remember the first 0W20s and 0w30s? Horrible stuff.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: HKPolice
Markets outside of North America and with hotter climates spec heavier oils because 0w20 is nearly impossible to find locally. It's about specing what is readily available in their market.


That's dubious at best. Ford/Honda et al specc'ed 5w20 when the distribution infrastructure and product diversity was limited. Market availability of a fluid does not dictate oil specification (am I really explaining this to you right now?!), specifications drive demand and thus distribution. I thought that was clear to most people.


Quote:
It has NOTHING to do with heavier oils being able to protect better under normal conditions.


Absolutely nothing? LOL So wear control has NOTHING to do with motor oil specifications, despite that ridiculous notion being shattered upon advice from the OEMs themselves? Yeah, okay.


Quote:

There was even a campaign in Asia by Toyota to get people to switch over to lighter viscosity oils. The standard in Asia used to be 20w50 and even 10w30 was hard to find. Asia has NO CAFE STANDARDS, so why would Toyota bother?


This is even more dubious than the previous statement. You are asserting that Japan has no fuel economy targets? LOL

Quote:

Two important sets of fuel efficiency targets are the 2010 targets and the 2015 targets (the latter also known as new fuel efficiency targets). These requirements were adopted through a number of amendments to the Energy Conservation Law, as follows:

* 1999—Adoption of 2010 fuel efficiency targets for gasoline passenger cars and light commercial vehicles (effective 2005 for diesel vehicles).
* 2003—Fuel efficiency standards for LPG cars (2010 targets).
* 2006—New fuel efficiency standards for heavy vehicles above 3.5 t (2015 targets).
* 2007—Adoption of 2015 fuel efficiency targets for light vehicles, including revisions to passenger car and light commercial vehicles standards, and new standards for small buses.


What's that?



Japanese automakers FOR SURE have domestic FE AND Emission targets to meet and EU is right there with them.

 

[HKPolice]

I'm ashamed that another Canadian can be so ignorant. Toyota wasn't campaigning just for Japan, but ALL OF ASIA. Most of them do NOT HAVE Fuel efficiency standards enforced, only currently "planned" for the future. Look @ the map yourself on page 6: http://www.globalfueleconomy.org/documents/publications/gfei_state_of_the_world_2014.pdf

Keep in mind the Lube report article was from 2005 when most Asian countries had zero FE policies.

People who hang on to thick oils will never change no matter how many facts or UOAs are thrown at them, it's like a religion. I'm going to ignore your posts from now on.

 

[Shannow]

HKPOlice, wow, what a lovely attitude that you have...you must be a charmer at parties.

I could say that jrustles is one of the Candadians who doesn't have reading/comprehension problems...particularly when trying to present thin oils as something that they clarely aren't and were never intended to be by the people introducing them.

You argue specifically that Asia doesn't have a thing called CAFE, a fuel economy measurement...however, they DO have greenhouse gas reduction requirements...same horse, different name.

Your link talks "economy", "economy", and "emissions"...if Toyota meant "improved engine life", then maybe they would have said that...and if they thought that it did, they can get an entire Prius and all the parts to service it into nearly any country...but can't carry a case of oil in the trunk of every one to provide their customers the utmost "protection".

I've no problems with thin oils. The reasons for introduction are clear by the automakers and lubricant manufacturers, but a small contingent on this group try to apply their wishful thinking to make it a super product, offering benefits that clearly defy science,and the statements/actions of the automakers.

Just because you WANT something to be true, as you want to feel that regulator/automakers are acting in YOUR best interests doesn't make it true.

"I'll neuter the power output of your car to save it from damage" sounds like they are offering you a benefit..."because the thin oil doesn't protect to the ends of the performance envelope of the drivetrain" sounds like you've been ripped off for some other agenda.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: jrustles

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

and minimizing engine wear when it's most likely to occur.


CITATION PLEASE!


Good luck with that, every time facts are asked for, we go on a tangent, that this time includes fashion tips about waist size, belts, and suspenders...

 

[asharris7]

I'm glad my thread has sparked so much interest lol

 

[dlundblad]

Would there ever be any harm from mixing various engine oils? I Assuming the weights are compatible with the engine they are going into of course.. 5w50 shouldn't be used in a brew for a 2014 Ford Fiesta! I ran a Frankenbrew in my Jeep for about 1000 miles. German VW TDI stuff, Kubota 15w40, M1, QS, Speedway, PP..

If mixing oil is dangerous, then you should find a brand and stick to it on day one for the rest of the engines life. Folks here, myself included, certainly don't do that.

 

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
Originally Posted By: Shannow

If thinner oils mean that the engines and cars wear out at closer to the same time, not only is that fuel efficient, it makes more sense in the overall life of a vehicle.

People just have to realise that compromise is real, makes sense, and that 20s aren't there to make your engine last an extra 0.5 vehicle lifetime.


Exactly, it's not a difficult concept to grasp.


Do you REALLY think the goal of CAFE, which is THE driver behind thinner and thinner oils, is to have engines and cars wear out simultaneously?

 

[Shannow]

No, I don't...it's all about economy...as CAFE and the NHTSA state, the average consumer undervalues economy by a significant margin, and needs regulatory pressures to provide society's true value on economy on new car purchases...they also state that thinner oils are the simplest and cheapest way to achieve this.

As is stated here time and time again, engines last longer than the chassis etc. So there's ample room to move in providing better economy, and if lesser overall protection is provided, and the engine still outlasts the car...no real negative outcomes to the owner...

Honda describe it as providing adequate or acceptable wear with lower viscosity oils.

Clearly there is no CAFE objective to make the engines last LONGER.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: asharris7
I'm glad my thread has sparked so much interest lol

As far as your secondary question as to why heavier oil grades are spec'd in warmer climes, (a question raised for the umpteenth time) it's not interest you have sparked but rather an opportunity from the same Chicken Little characters to chime in with their own irrational groundless viewpoint.

 

[asharris7]

Actually it wasn't a question cater, more of a statement. All good. I have no problem running "thin" oils

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Would there ever be any harm from mixing various engine oils? I Assuming the weights are compatible with the engine they are going into of course.. 5w50 shouldn't be used in a brew for a 2014 Ford Fiesta! I ran a Frankenbrew in my Jeep for about 1000 miles. German VW TDI stuff, Kubota 15w40, M1, QS, Speedway, PP..

If mixing oil is dangerous, then you should find a brand and stick to it on day one for the rest of the engines life. Folks here, myself included, certainly don't do that.

You can mix whatever you want. All API oils must be compatible in order to meet ASTM D6922. And the "weights" need not be "compatible" but if you want to end up with a 0W-XX oil it's best to only mix 0W oils or only 5W oils to end up with a 5W-XX oil, etc.

And yes you could use some 5W-50 to "brew" up something appropriate for a 2014 Fiesta assuming a 5W-30 is specified and not 5W-20. Of course the only blend option would be with a large amount of 0W/5W-20 to make a suitable 5W-30. But it wouldn't be approved if you had any concern about the car's warranty.
On the other hand you could mix every combination imaginable of approved oil brands of the specified grade without putting the warranty at risk in any way.

 

[asharris7]

With the current rebates from Pennzoil, $4 for a 5 qt jug seems to be a no brainer. I do like TGMO, MGMO etc, but the value ratio is not there for me.