How Thin Can it go ?
- Thread starter MrJhynx
- Start date
- Status
Not a very specific question... Readily available passenger car oils are 0w20. You can buy 0w16 soon and online now.
There's some lighter oils with non sae approved grades like Redline 2WT or Redline 5WT
There's some lighter oils with non sae approved grades like Redline 2WT or Redline 5WT
SAE has approved lower than 16 grade with 12,8,4 all being in the pipeline for possibility.
http://articles.sae.org/11945/
http://articles.sae.org/11945/
0w0
So could you have a -5W0 or something? Or is zero the limit? No negative viscosity numbers?
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Blackhole-W/nothing
I have '64 Pontiac Tempest owner's manual that recommends 10w oil for temps below 32 degrees. As others have pointed out, thin oils are nothing new. The same manual says 10w30 is an acceptable year round alternative.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: THX1138
I have '64 Pontiac Tempest owner's manual that recommends 10w oil for temps below 32 degrees. As others have pointed out, thin oils are nothing new. The same manual says 10w30 is an acceptable year round alternative.
Shannow recently said those monogrades from back then were basically equivelent to a modern day 10W30,I think?
I have '64 Pontiac Tempest owner's manual that recommends 10w oil for temps below 32 degrees. As others have pointed out, thin oils are nothing new. The same manual says 10w30 is an acceptable year round alternative.
Shannow recently said those monogrades from back then were basically equivelent to a modern day 10W30,I think?
Currently the thinnest defined sae motor oil would be something like a 0w8 which would have a KV100 of 4-6.1 cSt @100ºC with a min HTHSV of 1.7 cSt.
Originally Posted By: expat
But is thinner really better?
No it's not, viscosity is an important part of lubrication.
But is thinner really better?
No it's not, viscosity is an important part of lubrication.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: THX1138
I have '64 Pontiac Tempest owner's manual that recommends 10w oil for temps below 32 degrees. As others have pointed out, thin oils are nothing new. The same manual says 10w30 is an acceptable year round alternative.
Shannow recently said those monogrades from back then were basically equivelent to a modern day 10W30,I think?
Not quite...a 10W straight grade dino would be a "10W16" these days if one existed...and as THX1138 suggests, it's not above freezing, in a fairly low stressed engine, with a lot of air around it.
20W20 has similar HTHS to an ILSAC 30 multigrade
SAE 30 has the same HTHS as the minimum HTHS for a 40 multigrade.
Was going to explain that they are already exchanging hydrodynamic lubrication (considered zero wear, as the parts don't touch) with better fuel economy, and more parts touching, with a reduction in the wear produced by utilisation of better additives.
The additives don't prevent wear, they control it to manageable levels, which is fine given that the useful life of an engine is typically longer than the car.
They WILL go thinner, in the search for economy, and additives will play a greater part than ever.
Given that 0W is tested at -40C, I seriously doubt that there will be a -5W anytime...they might return 0W to the pumping viscosities that were originally intended (about half what they are for the temperature now, as the oil manufacturers seem to have flagged their intention to go to GrIII during the J300 developlment)
Originally Posted By: expat
Kerosene with an add pack according to Dr Haas.
But is thinner really better?
I think I covered that above...kerosene + additives displays a poor understanding of what lubricants do.
Originally Posted By: THX1138
I have '64 Pontiac Tempest owner's manual that recommends 10w oil for temps below 32 degrees. As others have pointed out, thin oils are nothing new. The same manual says 10w30 is an acceptable year round alternative.
Shannow recently said those monogrades from back then were basically equivelent to a modern day 10W30,I think?
Not quite...a 10W straight grade dino would be a "10W16" these days if one existed...and as THX1138 suggests, it's not above freezing, in a fairly low stressed engine, with a lot of air around it.
20W20 has similar HTHS to an ILSAC 30 multigrade
SAE 30 has the same HTHS as the minimum HTHS for a 40 multigrade.
Was going to explain that they are already exchanging hydrodynamic lubrication (considered zero wear, as the parts don't touch) with better fuel economy, and more parts touching, with a reduction in the wear produced by utilisation of better additives.
The additives don't prevent wear, they control it to manageable levels, which is fine given that the useful life of an engine is typically longer than the car.
They WILL go thinner, in the search for economy, and additives will play a greater part than ever.
Given that 0W is tested at -40C, I seriously doubt that there will be a -5W anytime...they might return 0W to the pumping viscosities that were originally intended (about half what they are for the temperature now, as the oil manufacturers seem to have flagged their intention to go to GrIII during the J300 developlment)
Originally Posted By: expat
Kerosene with an add pack according to Dr Haas.
But is thinner really better?
I think I covered that above...kerosene + additives displays a poor understanding of what lubricants do.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: THX1138
I have '64 Pontiac Tempest owner's manual that recommends 10w oil for temps below 32 degrees. As others have pointed out, thin oils are nothing new. The same manual says 10w30 is an acceptable year round alternative.
Shannow recently said those monogrades from back then were basically equivelent to a modern day 10W30,I think?
Not quite...a 10W straight grade dino would be a "10W16" these days if one existed...and as THX1138 suggests, it's not above freezing, in a fairly low stressed engine, with a lot of air around it.
20W20 has similar HTHS to an ILSAC 30 multigrade
SAE 30 has the same HTHS as the minimum HTHS for a 40 multigrade.
Was going to explain that they are already exchanging hydrodynamic lubrication (considered zero wear, as the parts don't touch) with better fuel economy, and more parts touching, with a reduction in the wear produced by utilisation of better additives.
The additives don't prevent wear, they control it to manageable levels, which is fine given that the useful life of an engine is typically longer than the car.
They WILL go thinner, in the search for economy, and additives will play a greater part than ever.
Given that 0W is tested at -40C, I seriously doubt that there will be a -5W anytime...they might return 0W to the pumping viscosities that were originally intended (about half what they are for the temperature now, as the oil manufacturers seem to have flagged their intention to go to GrIII during the J300 developlment)
Originally Posted By: expat
Kerosene with an add pack according to Dr Haas.
But is thinner really better?
I think I covered that above...kerosene + additives displays a poor understanding of what lubricants do.
Hey Shannow,something I've always wondered. Say you have two fluids,one that's too thin for the physical dynamics of a particular engine that is loaded with additives,and another that's thick enough to provide the necessary oil wedge to keep the moving parts apart,but no additives at all. Would the thicker lubricant be better since it actually keeps the parts separated vs the one that's too thin but loaded with anti wear adds?
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: THX1138
I have '64 Pontiac Tempest owner's manual that recommends 10w oil for temps below 32 degrees. As others have pointed out, thin oils are nothing new. The same manual says 10w30 is an acceptable year round alternative.
Shannow recently said those monogrades from back then were basically equivelent to a modern day 10W30,I think?
Not quite...a 10W straight grade dino would be a "10W16" these days if one existed...and as THX1138 suggests, it's not above freezing, in a fairly low stressed engine, with a lot of air around it.
20W20 has similar HTHS to an ILSAC 30 multigrade
SAE 30 has the same HTHS as the minimum HTHS for a 40 multigrade.
Was going to explain that they are already exchanging hydrodynamic lubrication (considered zero wear, as the parts don't touch) with better fuel economy, and more parts touching, with a reduction in the wear produced by utilisation of better additives.
The additives don't prevent wear, they control it to manageable levels, which is fine given that the useful life of an engine is typically longer than the car.
They WILL go thinner, in the search for economy, and additives will play a greater part than ever.
Given that 0W is tested at -40C, I seriously doubt that there will be a -5W anytime...they might return 0W to the pumping viscosities that were originally intended (about half what they are for the temperature now, as the oil manufacturers seem to have flagged their intention to go to GrIII during the J300 developlment)
Originally Posted By: expat
Kerosene with an add pack according to Dr Haas.
But is thinner really better?
I think I covered that above...kerosene + additives displays a poor understanding of what lubricants do.
Hey Shannow,something I've always wondered. Say you have two fluids,one that's too thin for the physical dynamics of a particular engine that is loaded with additives,and another that's thick enough to provide the necessary oil wedge to keep the moving parts apart,but no additives at all. Would the thicker lubricant be better since it actually keeps the parts separated vs the one that's too thin but loaded with anti wear adds?
aquariuscsm,
every answer depends on the question that's asked.
Best oil for an industrial application is the one that lets components last 100,000-200,000 hours without seizure, excessive wear/misalignment etc. (200,000 hours at 40MPH is 9 million miles), and can only be done with hydrodynamics (in journal bearings and sliding)...the turbine OEMs offer ISO46 and ISO32 as options (just over 5 to just under 7 cst at 100C respectively)...the latter offers a greater safety margin "headroom", industry usually chooses the ISO32 on a risk/reward in terms of an infinitesimal but real improvement in efficiency over a 25 year life.
Other applications can't survive for any length of time on something less than ISO320 (25cst@100C, and that's thick), some other small group ISO1000, 55cst at 100C).
In an automotive application, the question is different, it's not an open ended, 200,000 hours flat out operation...it's more like 5,000 -6,000 hours, and the whole shebang gets scrapped.
Correct answer to that question can be skewed more towards saving fuel while getting to the finish line, and that's what they are doing.
This wasn't a bad discussion recently...regarding balance.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ht_#Post3797020
The thicker, as demonstrated in the article provides less wear, regardless of additive package (not advocating SAE40 at -40C), but overall life cost may skew the proper answer to a thinner oil.
every answer depends on the question that's asked.
Best oil for an industrial application is the one that lets components last 100,000-200,000 hours without seizure, excessive wear/misalignment etc. (200,000 hours at 40MPH is 9 million miles), and can only be done with hydrodynamics (in journal bearings and sliding)...the turbine OEMs offer ISO46 and ISO32 as options (just over 5 to just under 7 cst at 100C respectively)...the latter offers a greater safety margin "headroom", industry usually chooses the ISO32 on a risk/reward in terms of an infinitesimal but real improvement in efficiency over a 25 year life.
Other applications can't survive for any length of time on something less than ISO320 (25cst@100C, and that's thick), some other small group ISO1000, 55cst at 100C).
In an automotive application, the question is different, it's not an open ended, 200,000 hours flat out operation...it's more like 5,000 -6,000 hours, and the whole shebang gets scrapped.
Correct answer to that question can be skewed more towards saving fuel while getting to the finish line, and that's what they are doing.
This wasn't a bad discussion recently...regarding balance.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...ht_#Post3797020
The thicker, as demonstrated in the article provides less wear, regardless of additive package (not advocating SAE40 at -40C), but overall life cost may skew the proper answer to a thinner oil.
There may not be an SAE designation for crankcase oil thinner than a 0W, but there are plenty of ISO classifications that go below.
ISO VG 2 has a viscosity of 1.98 to 2.42 mm^2/sec at 40C
ISO VG 2 has a viscosity of 1.98 to 2.42 mm^2/sec at 40C
Originally Posted By: DriveHard
There may not be an SAE designation for crankcase oil thinner than a 0W, but there are plenty of ISO classifications that go below.
ISO VG 2 has a viscosity of 1.98 to 2.42 mm^2/sec at 40C
Nope, 0W is a cold cranking spec at -40C
ISOVG2 may not even pour at -40C, let alone meet the 0W specs.
There may not be an SAE designation for crankcase oil thinner than a 0W, but there are plenty of ISO classifications that go below.
ISO VG 2 has a viscosity of 1.98 to 2.42 mm^2/sec at 40C
Nope, 0W is a cold cranking spec at -40C
ISOVG2 may not even pour at -40C, let alone meet the 0W specs.
Originally Posted By: Travis99LS1
So could you have a -5W0 or something? Or is zero the limit? No negative viscosity numbers?
How about 00W10 or 000W5 etc., similar to wire gauges.
So could you have a -5W0 or something? Or is zero the limit? No negative viscosity numbers?
How about 00W10 or 000W5 etc., similar to wire gauges.
- Status
Similar threads
