Thinner oils and higher wear

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: il_signore97
This is a strawman argument that is really not true anymore in MOST applications (yes, there will always be those few engines that can grind any oil down a grade). But in general, today's synthetic 5W30 oils are generally very robust, and shear stable. So your above statements are not entirely correct.

Not according to the UOAs posted around here... More shear-stable than in the 1980s, yes, but they still usually shear below the xW-30 limit.

Also, if an engine is not shearing an oil much, it means that its minimum oil-film thickness is large and it can tolerate thinner oil.

 

[il_signore97]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: il_signore97
This is a strawman argument that is really not true anymore in MOST applications (yes, there will always be those few engines that can grind any oil down a grade). But in general, today's synthetic 5W30 oils are generally very robust, and shear stable. So your above statements are not entirely correct.

Not according to the UOAs posted around here... More shear-stable than in the 1980s, yes, but they still usually shear below the xW-30 limit.

Also, if an engine is not shearing an oil much, it means that its minimum oil-film thickness is large and it can tolerate thinner oil.



In many cases, the "shear" you speak of is not actually mechanical shear, but a drop in viscosity due to fuel dilution (evidenced by an also lower than normal flashpoint). And to be clear, fuel dilution will also cause a similar drop in any xW20 grade oil.

Also, I can bet you that for every "sheared" 5W30 UOA you pull up, I can find one that did not shear. So a few UOA's is not proof of anything really.

This 5W30 shearing issue is grossly overblown.

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Less dependency is good. Everybody need to cooperate.


Yeah, but most Americans would spaz out of we took the Brazilian fuel model. Some folks go out of their way to avoid E10, let alone forcing folks onto E18-E25 (and some would have a stroke if we went E100. You don't need CAFE if we grew 50% of our fuel.


Now you said it! Pretty much clarifies a measure for most people of reppeling new resorces and solutions. I see people prefering to use 0w5 oils as opposed to use more alcohol. Ethanol E27 and FFV like in here, is the way to go. That's the future and nobody shoud try to brake the future.

 

[kschachn]

You don't need CAFE in any case. Did I miss the part where there is a shortage of oil in the US?

I didn't think so.

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Yeah, but most Americans would spaz out of we took the Brazilian fuel model. Some folks go out of their way to avoid E10, let alone forcing folks onto E18-E25 (and some would have a stroke if we went E100. You don't need CAFE if we grew 50% of our fuel.

 

[Brigadier]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Less dependency is good. Everybody need to cooperate.


Yeah, but most Americans would spaz out of we took the Brazilian fuel model. Some folks go out of their way to avoid E10, let alone forcing folks onto E18-E25 (and some would have a stroke if we went E100. You don't need CAFE if we grew 50% of our fuel.


I am one of those that goes out of my way to run E0. Until you try it in your vehicle, you cannot judge on the performance/mpg penalty 10% whisky exacts on your vehicle.

BTW, I am not for the E85-E100 model. Even E15 is not allowed per my owner's manual[Funny how some of those that recommend referencing the manual for oil want to ignore this about ethanol and fuel].

Drill baby drill! Frack baby frack!!

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
You don't need CAFE in any case. Did I miss the part where there is a shortage of oil in the US?

I didn't think so.


Hummm... yes, in 2008. We had a fuel shortage in the southeast. The there was that pesky oil embargo that CREATED CAFE standards. The trick is that life shuts down if there is a shortage at 11mpg, we can limp along at 25mpg... and considering the average age of a vehicle is 11 years old in the US, we are dependent on 2004 fuel economy standards... which hit their low water mark in that same year... hummm...

I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen despite never having a fire. When the average commute in the country is a 22 minute drive and you have complete automobile dependency, even a small "hiccup" in the imported fuel supply can cause a Titanic-lifeboat problem. A significant amount of worker commute over 40 miles per day.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Brigadier
Drill baby drill! Frack baby frack!!


China (current) average fuel price $3.98
US fuel price: $2.49

Export baby export... screw the "locals" other people pay more. Capitalism!

Frack? How is the water situation west of the Miss? Not good ain't it.

 

[kschachn]

Well, none of which equates to an oil shortage in the US, much less NA in general of course.

There really is no need nor justification for growing fuel here in the US. There just isn't.

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Hummm... yes, in 2008. We had a fuel shortage in the southeast. The there was that pesky oil embargo that CREATED CAFE standards. The trick is that life shuts down if there is a shortage at 11mpg, we can limp along at 25mpg... and considering the average age of a vehicle is 11 years old in the US, we are dependent on 2004 fuel economy standards... which hit their low water mark in that same year... hummm...

 

[kschachn]

...

 

[Pontual]

There is no shortage, but a will to buy gross from other place's, and save that one below the ground, maybe for the future? If people is willing to sell, then the plan is fullfilled.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: Brigadier

I am one of those that goes out of my way to run E0. Until you try it in your vehicle, you cannot judge on the performance/mpg penalty 10% whisky exacts on your vehicle.

BTW, I am not for the E85-E100 model. Even E15 is not allowed per my owner's manual[Funny how some of those that recommend referencing the manual for oil want to ignore this about ethanol and fuel].

Drill baby drill! Frack baby frack!!


This is my favorite post of the day.

 

[FutureDoc]

Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee are in the the US... and even happened in recent memory.

Growing fuel makes sense... supporting Putin (Russian economy is extremely dependent on high fuel prices) and King Salaman does not. Even if we drill more, there is no reason to keep the additional production with the domestic supply. Growing more at least keep a great portion of that supply local.

 

[KCJeep]

Even a sheared 5w30 is likely to have a kv100 that is on the high side for a 20, and the HTHS is almost certainly still above 2.6.

The 20's shear too...we have scores of UOA's with 20's in the 7's at kv100 and some in the 6's, zikes not for me!

Our KIA shears pretty bad due to a lot of short trips, so I use 5w30 which UOA's have shown will still be a high 20 at drain time. A good plan IMO for a vehicle that's primary spec is 5w20.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
true, but when I have suggested that a reduction in potential engine life is justified by the fuel savings and in not having an engine that outlives the vehicle by an average factor of 2 or 3, I get called a liar.

It's a fair balance, as long as every player is aware that it's a balance.

Thin oils aren't there to make your engine last longer, which is the posit that some here are pushing.


For that matter, why do we have so many posts concerning the grade of engine oil used when that plays only a minor role in preserving the function of the mobil assembly as a whole?
How many members obsses about engine oil grade, additives and drain intervals while ignoring things even more important to vehicle survival, like coolant changes, transmission maintenance and even things as vital to safe operation as brakes and tires?
If we were honest about the single component most likely to send an otherwise functional car to the yard, this site would be known as BOB IS THE ATF GUY.

 

[Jetronic]

there's no ATF in my car though

 

[B320i]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
What is forgotten in this discussion is that conventional 5W-30 and even many synthetic 5W-30 oils shear to 5W-20 anyway; so, there is really not much difference in viscosity between 5W-20/0W-20 and most 5W-30 oils.

5W-20/0W-20 oils that are commercially available are very close to xW-30 weight and they are more shear-stable than xW-30. Any car that can tolerate 5W-30 should be able tolerate 5W-20/0W-20.

The only exceptions are ACEA A3/B3(/B4) xW-30 oils. These are what I call "xW-35" oils and are closer to xW-40 than xW-30 in weight. Neither xW-20 nor regular xW-30 should be used if such "xW-35" is the minimum viscosity specified.


Turns out there are actually BMW LL-98 0w20 oils. Well, precisely one based on my research. Google it(!)

My opinion on the subject is this - modern engines are built much tighter than older ones, and thus require a thinner oil to ensure adequate protection. A thicker oil won't get in the tight areas as well as a thin one would, regardless of temperature of what silly oil manufacturers say.

I'm not sure about filter technology, but wouldn't the OEM's have figured out some sort of system to ensure that filtration remains superb during the interval specified to ensure minimal wear?
(What I am thinking of here is something like the centrifuge filter found on the Rover TD5)

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: il_signore97
This is a strawman argument that is really not true anymore in MOST applications (yes, there will always be those few engines that can grind any oil down a grade). But in general, today's synthetic 5W30 oils are generally very robust, and shear stable. So your above statements are not entirely correct.

Not according to the UOAs posted around here... More shear-stable than in the 1980s, yes, but they still usually shear below the xW-30 limit.

Also, if an engine is not shearing an oil much, it means that its minimum oil-film thickness is large and it can tolerate thinner oil.


Gokhan...please point to all of the "usually"shears down to a 20 UOAs..."usually" means "most of the time", and that's clearly an untruth.

"Many" of the 0W20s end up out of grade, which makes their universal shear stability also an untruth.

The "5W30 becomes a 5W20" strawman is classic "look over there a bunny"...

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: B320i
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
What is forgotten in this discussion is that conventional 5W-30 and even many synthetic 5W-30 oils shear to 5W-20 anyway; so, there is really not much difference in viscosity between 5W-20/0W-20 and most 5W-30 oils.

5W-20/0W-20 oils that are commercially available are very close to xW-30 weight and they are more shear-stable than xW-30. Any car that can tolerate 5W-30 should be able tolerate 5W-20/0W-20.

The only exceptions are ACEA A3/B3(/B4) xW-30 oils. These are what I call "xW-35" oils and are closer to xW-40 than xW-30 in weight. Neither xW-20 nor regular xW-30 should be used if such "xW-35" is the minimum viscosity specified.


Turns out there are actually BMW LL-98 0w20 oils. Well, precisely one based on my research. Google it(!)

My opinion on the subject is this - modern engines are built much tighter than older ones, and thus require a thinner oil to ensure adequate protection. A thicker oil won't get in the tight areas as well as a thin one would, regardless of temperature of what silly oil manufacturers say.

I'm not sure about filter technology, but wouldn't the OEM's have figured out some sort of system to ensure that filtration remains superb during the interval specified to ensure minimal wear?
[/B](What I am thinking of here is something like the centrifuge filter found on the Rover TD5)[/B]

Some Centrifuge filters are considered too harsh on heavier weight additive package, like AW and VII, and silicon antifoamers, sending some out of mix, by separation. That's a quicky depleter.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,

Originally Posted By: Pontual

Some Centrifuge filters are considered too harsh on heavier weight additive package, like AW and VII, and silicon antifoamers, sending some out of mix, by separation. That's a quicky depleter.


Please provide some factual evidence (Make of Centrifuge etc.) to support this statement

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,

Originally Posted By: Pontual

Some Centrifuge filters are considered too harsh on heavier weight additive package, like AW and VII, and silicon antifoamers, sending some out of mix, by separation. That's a quicky depleter.


Please provide some factual evidence (Make of Centrifuge etc.) to support this statement


H.M. CHOLLET "COURS PRATIQUE POUR MÉCANICIENS D'AUTOMOBILES - LE MOTEUR (Bibliothèque Profissionnelle) ISBN 2-602-00888-5, y. 1996, Brazillian version, ed Hemus, page 107 and ss. Saying that "Ït can get obstructed" ... by heavier particles of the oil, like oxidation byproducts, carbon, metal, including organometalics.

And:

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/639/centrifugal-filtration


..."Centrifuges used in engine applications do not affect the oil additive package. However, if various components of the additive package precipitate out of the oil over time, then the centrifuge can remove them. One example of this is calcium, which can be found in the contaminant collected in a centrifuge after it has been in service for some time. Though the composition of the contaminant collected in a centrifuge can vary by percentage, the three main categories include: volatiles (oil), soot and inorganic contaminants (wear metals, precipitated components of the additive package, dust introduced into the system, chemicals introduced from coolant leaks, etc.). Typical percentages for newer engines meeting EPA 2002 regulations are 45 to 50 percent volatiles, 45 to 50 percent soot, and the remainder is inorganic contaminants"...

My take:
The production of such separation isn't a just question of manufacturer and type, but of condition. It's dependent in centrifuge size and speed, nonetheless by engine oil type and grade, dilution, always combined with longer term usage, because the add pack isn't instantly disturbed and separated, and moreover, it is temperature related.

.