Would you sacrifice engine life......

expat · Jul 30, 2015

Would you sacrifice a small amount of your engines life expectancy for a small gain in fuel ecconomy?

I base this on the proposition that manufacturers are willing to accept a (small) increase in engine wear to gain a (small) increase in overall fuel ecconomy.

Gains and losses will of course depend on your areas climatic conditions and the anticipated length of ownership of you vehicle.

stchman · Jul 30, 2015

I would say you are on to something except that today's engines are better built, last longer, and get better fuel economy that engines designed 20 years ago.

demarpaint · Jul 30, 2015

This should be good!

Jasper8146 · Jul 30, 2015

I don't think I would in the abstract, but the question is how much life vs. how much efficiency gain. The economics would really require some sophisticated analysis to figure out which made more economic sense in the long run.

Leonardo629 · Jul 30, 2015

how do you increase friction/wear and increase MPG at the same time?

tinmanSC · Jul 30, 2015

Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
how do you increase friction/wear and increase MPG at the same time?

That would be a neat trick.

53' Stude · Jul 30, 2015

I 2nd Demarpaints feelings on this one. popcorn2:

mclasser · Jul 30, 2015

Sounds like VCM in Hondas...

SirTanon · Jul 30, 2015

I could be wrong here, but it seems to me the natural association would be increased MPG and LOWER wear.

But I could be wrong

slacktide_bitog · Jul 30, 2015

Originally Posted By: SirTanon
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me the natural association would be increased MPG and LOWER wear.

But I could be wrong

The thinner oils may not lubricate and protect quite as well as something thicker, hence more wear.

The thinner oils create less internal drag and friction, hence increased MPG.

Quattro Pete · Jul 30, 2015

Originally Posted By: expat
Would you sacrifice a small amount of your engines life expectancy for a small gain in fuel ecconomy?

You're assuming there has to be a sacrifice, but despite movement toward thinner oils, today's engines last longer than ever. If there is a sacrifice (there may be), it's likely irrelevant.

Schmoe · Jul 30, 2015

Oh SNAP!!!! It's thin vs. thick oil again!!!

stchman · Jul 30, 2015

Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me the natural association would be increased MPG and LOWER wear.

But I could be wrong

The thinner oils may not lubricate and protect quite as well as something thicker, hence more wear.

The thinner oils create less internal drag and friction, hence increased MPG.

The only way metal wears is by friction, if metal is indeed wearing as you say with a thinner oil then the MPGs are going to drop.

Donald · Jul 30, 2015

By adding MMO?

CarbonSteel · Jul 30, 2015

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: expat
Would you sacrifice a small amount of your engines life expectancy for a small gain in fuel ecconomy?
You're assuming there has to be a sacrifice, but despite movement toward thinner oils, today's engines last longer than ever. If there is a sacrifice (there may be), it's likely irrelevant.

panther427 · Jul 30, 2015

With even newer specified coatings on year items that lower friction up front but long term combined with thinner oils wear out quicker maybe. Quick hopefully being 10 plus years. 200K miles. There is all kinds of neat tricks out there. The one Shelby mustang where aluminium blocks with no kind of normal liners for the cylinders. Instead a special plasma transfer coating. Strong enough for its purpose. But cylinder honing would destroy it

omegaspeedy · Jul 30, 2015

Originally Posted By: stchman
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me the natural association would be increased MPG and LOWER wear.

But I could be wrong

The thinner oils may not lubricate and protect quite as well as something thicker, hence more wear.

The thinner oils create less internal drag and friction, hence increased MPG.

The only way metal wears is by friction, if metal is indeed wearing as you say with a thinner oil then the MPGs are going to drop.

But what if the reduction of internal drag is greater than the addition of frictional drag from the thiner oil? Then you have greater fuel economy at the expense of wear?????

CT8 · Jul 30, 2015

It is a CAFE thing. Not to worry.

Vuflanovsky · Jul 30, 2015

I think the premise here might be a little one dimensional too...it's not a 'thick vs. thin' argument if the use of a "smart" alternator, pumping up your tires, and the presence of new anti-friction coatings on valvetrain tappets and piston rings gives you more mpg impact than what grade oil you put in it. The potential MPG/wear tradeoff is then skewed toward components of the car not necessarily related to using a 10w-30 to "protect your engine" versus an 0w-20.

You can make the argument that the components are adding longevity and mpg to the car to a greater extent than the manufacturers are accepting of a small increase in engine wear...if there is any.

thrace · Jul 30, 2015

Quote:
Would you sacrifice a small amount of your engines life expectancy for a small gain in fuel ecconomy?

Honda has already made the sacrifice with their VCM engines. They occasionally and unpredictably have early engine problems that are not necessarily the fault of the owner.

VCM gives higher EPA mileage rating but not much increase of real world mileage unless you drive just like the EPA cycle. Thanks to Honda and CAFE for this Faustian bargain.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/10/23/honda-settles-class-action-lawsuit-engines/

http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA913971022.PDF

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3284911/Can_Honda_VCM_problems_be_fixe

http://answers.edmunds.com/question-2012-Honda-Pilot-engine-failure-176480.aspx

Would you sacrifice engine life......

Similar threads