Thinner oils and higher wear

[Clevy]

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?
(What I am thinking of here is something like the centrifuge filter found on the Rover TD5)



Absurd.

If a 20 cold is getting into those tight spots then a hot 40 grade is easily getting there.

Nonsense.

 

[Oil Changer]

No. Just, no. Read more, type less.

Originally Posted By: B320i
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.

 

[fdcg27]

No full flow oil filter is capable of filtering out smaller debris still large enough to cause damage with any appreciable efficiency.
For that matter, the makers of Japanese cars for which a 0W-20 is recommended still supply rock catcher oil filters as OEM and service parts.
You might also want to check out some references that'll give you main bearing clearances. They aren't any smaller now than they were back in the day.
I'm going to hazard a guess that bearing clearances have more to do with how they're intended to work than with grade of oil recommended.

 

[Shannow]

There's a couple of Honda papers that have been referenced on BITOG over the years that indicate Honda is/will be tightening clearances and increasing projected areas.

To me that indicates that they are prepared to take a hit on drag in the bearing area to reduce the drag in the piston/ring area.

The concept that oil can't make it into these clearances is laughable 'though.

 

[B320i]

Well, if clearances aren't any tighter - then clearly the oil pumps are working to move far more volume of oil to make up for the lack of viscosity, if cars were wearing out as quickly as ones of yore, I'm sure there'd by class actions and all [censored] break loose.

And we'd be seeing phenomenal wear numbers on UOA's on engines designed for these oils - which I haven't in my research.

 

[chrisri]

My 2010 Yamaha 1000cc/60hp outboard with very thigh clearances ( probably tighter than any normal car motor) is specified to use 10w40 semisynthetic oil.

My main bearings must be bone dry.

 

[fdcg27]

Any oil pump I've ever heard of can move oil in some multiple of what the main bearings will actually take.
There is also the question of whether any current engine was actually desgined for 0W-20 or whether it was found that this grade could be used without unacceptably reducing engine life.
Remember, the engine need only function well for the life of the car as a whole. There'd be no point in designing an engine or its oil recommendations to allow it to outlast the vehicle it's installed in by a factor of two.
If you look at the oil grade recommendations for many common engines, you'll see radically different grade recommendations for different national markets.
Most engines will live long lives on a variety of grades and aren't all that picky about grade used.

 

[il_signore97]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: B320i


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)



Absurd.

If a 20 cold is getting into those tight spots then a hot 40 grade is easily getting there.

Nonsense.



Thank you Clevy. You took the words right out of my mouth lol

 

[Merkava_4]

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.


Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Please provide some factual evidence (Make of Centrifuge etc.) to support this statement


Originally Posted By: Pontual
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.


He called your bluff on that one Hillary! HA HA!

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: B320i
Well, if clearances aren't any tighter - then clearly the oil pumps are working to move far more volume of oil to make up for the lack of viscosity, if cars were wearing out as quickly as ones of yore, I'm sure there'd by class actions and all [censored] break loose.

And we'd be seeing phenomenal wear numbers on UOA's on engines designed for these oils - which I haven't in my research.


Flow isn't lubrication, if you are basing your beliefs on that foundation, you clearly don't understand how lubrication works.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: il_signore97
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: B320i


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)



Absurd.

If a 20 cold is getting into those tight spots then a hot 40 grade is easily getting there.

Nonsense.



Thank you Clevy. You took the words right out of my mouth lol

NP

I find this idea of tighter clearances and "tolerances" and suddenly requiring thinner oil hogwash. In North America we get thin oil force fed to us then people nonsensically justify it by claiming tolerances or clearances are the reason when if one does a simple Google search we discover in other markets thicker oils are not only allowed but suggested if the duty cycle is severe.
Which tells me manufacturers tow the line here trying to convince us of something then uninformed people spout it as though it were gospel. The dodge hemi comes to mind. I see posts all the time written by people who obviously don't have an original thought on their own spout the "need" for a 20 grade or imminent failure.
Gimme a break.
Today's engines are no different than engine built 50 years ago in that they can run on a range of viscosity lubricants and there is no "one size fits all".
Condider the duty cycle,ambient temps and chosen interval and make an educated choice.
I'm not trashing thin oil. I'm trashing the idea that thin oil is absolutely required to "lubricate"!in colder temps or that cylinder deactivation or valve actuation won't work properly without it.
And I agree that thicker oils may not be optimal in all conditions however catastrophic failure isn't imminent using them.
When in doubt try it out. Learn for yourselves. Don't just accept common belief as truth. Test on your own.
We are force fed so much nonsense today that I question everything. It's my nature to be inquisitive and I want to know why things are as they are.
When someone tells me something I test for myself if possible. So then I'm not a parrot spouting stuff that may not be correct and had I tried for myself I'd know that n
Prevents me looking stupid most times.
Like when I read "you must use a 20 grade or oil consumption/slow oil flow/MDS doesn't work" because I've tested myself I know these ideas to be complete nonsense,yet people still post it because someone towing the line told them so. Never considering the source and following blindly.
Lemmings jumping off cliff comes to mind.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,

Pontual - Whilst it’s true that some Centrifuge filtration systems perform better than others, all are a quantum leap forward over a full flow filter in maintaining engine lubricant condition via the removal on contaminants. They are also demonstrably better than the normal barrier type by-pass filtration system at the same task.

It can be said that any by-pass system will better maintain engine lubricant condition than a normal full flow filtration system. However the end result comes at a cost and for most end users (especially non Commercial car users) the cost over benefit ratio simply doesn’t stack up

I first became a fan of by-pass systems in Commercial equipment – namely in Earthmoving and in Heavy trucks during Testing in the 1960s and later on in small Japanese high speed diesel engines on Reefer Units on Semis

My first exposure to Centrifuge systems on cars was on some Simca engines during the 1960s too In the case of the Simca car engines the Centrifuge was crankshaft mounted and prone to lack of servicing once the vehicle left the Simca service network. I’ve seen these devices clogged rock hard with debris rendering them totally ineffective at that point

Other Euro engines also used various types of Centrifuge lubricant conditioners as well – mostly on diesel engines. Some of these engines were pre combustion chamber types

In my own case I used Mann-Hummel Centrifuge units on my Detroit Series 60 powered vehicles. This was over millions of Kms in all sorts of climatic conditions. In the final configuration I dispensed with the synthetic media barrier FF filters and used 45 Micron SS cleanable screen inserts instead

In various Tests via SAE and OEMs it has been shown that the rate of depletion of the additive package was lower in engines fitted with a Centrifuge. Of course this is typically because the contaminants are removed very quickly allowing the detergent additives (depending on formulation) to function longer

Some practical facts;

Typical Test results follow:
Particle (metallic wear metals) size in Microns/%

15% 0.25-0.5/25% 0.5-1/30% 1-2/16% 2-3/6% 3-5/4% 5-10/2% >10/2%

So around 90% or so of the particles were less than 2 Microns

My vehicle’s results (using Mobil and Castrol Labs) showed no unusual additive depletion due to the Centrifuge
OCIs averaged 90050kms

TAN at OCI = 6.67

TBN at OCI = 2.64

In all other such Field Testing on various engine Families the results of the TAN/TBN “balance” were much the same

So IMO based on considerable Field Testing and Lab results and other practical experience there is no evidence of any abnormal additive depletion due to the operation of a Centrifuge

 

[Kamele0N]

Originally Posted By: chrisri
My 2010 Yamaha 1000cc/60hp outboard with very thigh clearances ( probably tighter than any normal car motor) is specified to use 10w40 semisynthetic oil.

My main bearings must be bone dry.


Yeah...but in EU we have invited oil pumps....in USA they probably still have splash lube system...look at their B&S ope engines wich they are sending us overseas

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I was hoping more guys would just simply comment on what was written in the article.



OK

IIRC (don't have time right now to read it again) it was plausible, but there wasn't any actual evidence in it.

Its (sort of) surprising how scarce actual evidence is on such seemingly simple questions, but when you consider that:-

(a) they often aren't really ALL that simple, so evidence might be expensive to get.
(b) evidence might get in the way of the marketing and/or political pitch, and
(c) evidence in this field is usually proprietary property

I suppose its inevitable.

Of course evidence would shorten these threads a lot too, which some people might not like

 

[boxcartommie22]

+1 clevy exactly correct.

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: il_signore97
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: B320i


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)



Absurd.

If a 20 cold is getting into those tight spots then a hot 40 grade is easily getting there.

Nonsense.



Thank you Clevy. You took the words right out of my mouth lol

NP

I find this idea of tighter clearances and "tolerances" and suddenly requiring thinner oil hogwash. In North America we get thin oil force fed to us then people nonsensically justify it by claiming tolerances or clearances are the reason when if one does a simple Google search we discover in other markets thicker oils are not only allowed but suggested if the duty cycle is severe.
Which tells me manufacturers tow the line here trying to convince us of something then uninformed people spout it as though it were gospel. The dodge hemi comes to mind. I see posts all the time written by people who obviously don't have an original thought on their own spout the "need" for a 20 grade or imminent failure.
Gimme a break.
Today's engines are no different than engine built 50 years ago in that they can run on a range of viscosity lubricants and there is no "one size fits all".
Condider the duty cycle,ambient temps and chosen interval and make an educated choice.
I'm not trashing thin oil. I'm trashing the idea that thin oil is absolutely required to "lubricate"!in colder temps or that cylinder deactivation or valve actuation won't work properly without it.
And I agree that thicker oils may not be optimal in all conditions however catastrophic failure isn't imminent using them.
When in doubt try it out. Learn for yourselves. Don't just accept common belief as truth. Test on your own.
We are force fed so much nonsense today that I question everything. It's my nature to be inquisitive and I want to know why things are as they are.
When someone tells me something I test for myself if possible. So then I'm not a parrot spouting stuff that may not be correct and had I tried for myself I'd know that n
Prevents me looking stupid most times.
Like when I read "you must use a 20 grade or oil consumption/slow oil flow/MDS doesn't work" because I've tested myself I know these ideas to be complete nonsense,yet people still post it because someone towing the line told them so. Never considering the source and following blindly.
Lemmings jumping off cliff comes to mind.


Fantastic post Clevy I believe pretty much the same but could never have said it so well.

 

[buster]

There is no such thing as a best "one size fits all" viscosity grade, and that makes the statement "thinner oils = more wear" meaningless.

The best viscosity simply depends on the engine, driving conditions, application and specific performance goals you're after.

So being fuel economy is the reason why the industry has moved towards lower viscosity does not necessarily mean that oils of low viscosity are going to produce more wear. Engineers have been working to address those issues with better quality oils and base oils. It's a challenge but it's being done.

For the majority of folks that drive the speed limit here in the U.S. and don't race around, I don't see any issue at all with lower viscosity grades.

I wouldn't want to use a 20 grade in a car that is seeing 100mph on the Autobahn though. So it really just depends on a lot of things.

 

[Kamele0N]

Your statements about (thiner) viscosity and therefore improved fuel efficiency are readable the same as.... as toughts of those americans who says that they must buy SUV that they will be safer on road...stupidity here is the same

You will simply achive the same with smaller cars (less weight produce less fuel comsumption)....with more efficient and smaler (twin) turbo engines (less fuel again)...etc etc

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: buster
There is no such thing as a best "one size fits all" viscosity grade, and that makes the statement "thinner oils = more wear" meaningless.

The best viscosity simply depends on the engine, driving conditions, application and specific performance goals you're after.

So being fuel economy is the reason why the industry has moved towards lower viscosity does not necessarily mean that oils of low viscosity are going to produce more wear. Engineers have been working to address those issues with better quality oils and base oils. It's a challenge but it's being done.

For the majority of folks that drive the speed limit here in the U.S. and don't race around, I don't see any issue at all with lower viscosity grades.

I wouldn't want to use a 20 grade in a car that is seeing 100mph on the Autobahn though. So it really just depends on a lot of things.



Exactly. Is 5w-20 optimal under all conditions? Absolutely not however at 70mph my charger is spinning at 2000rpm and oil temps are under 220f. So there's no doubt in my mind that the suggested 20 grade is more than adequate in that duty cycle. Same car enjoying the pedal with oil temps at 280f and 5500 rpm,well a thicker oil would provide a thicker oil film at those elevated temps so when taking that also into consideration a person may decide to go thicker.
Again consider all factors involved and make a conscientious decision based on actual operating conditions.
No engine failed because the oil in sump wasa grade or 2 thicker than optimal.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Clevy

I see posts all the time written by people who obviously don't have an original thought on their own spout the "need" for a 20 grade or imminent failure.


You think its bad in the US?

If you want to be patronised by pompous arseholes, try suggesting ANY deviation from manufacturers recommendations on the (British) HonestJohn automative website and see what happens.

(Oops. Now I'm an asylum seeker)