0w14 coming soon

[Gokhan]

According to this SAE paper, thinner oils were a lose - lose choice in these two cases. The car that was already fuel-efficient (Car 1) saw decreased fuel economy with thinner oils. The not-so-fuel-efficient car (Car 2) saw increase in fuel economy but I am guessing that it's a high-performance car, which means, thinner oils will not work (they will result in excessive wear) when you get the performance/load from it that it's designed for, rather than the standard dyno fuel-economy test that mimics normal driving.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
According to this SAE paper, thinner oils were a lose - lose choice in these two cases. The car that was already fuel-efficient (Car 1) saw decreased fuel economy with thinner oils. The not-so-fuel-efficient car (Car 2) saw increase in fuel economy but I am guessing that it's a high-performance car, which means, thinner oils will not work (they will result in excessive wear) when you get the performance/load from it that it's designed for, rather than the standard dyno fuel-economy test that mimics normal driving.


Did you read the paper??? - if you did I would love for you to provide some clarification to your analysis.

If you didn't read the paper, but are simply using the abstract to reinforce your preconceived notion about the affect of engine oil on fuel economy then I'm calling you out.

The actual conclusion of the paper was more like this:
Quote:
The variable “oil” revealed to have a highly statistical
significant effect on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, as
well as the interaction between the variables “oil” and
“vehicle”. This latter result is the statistical confirmation that
the two vehicles provide a different ranking of the test oils.

In both cases there was fuel economy improvement - how much was impacted by vehicle design. The authors also note in the conclusion that there were other factors in the behavior of vehicle 1 that could explain why the 2.0 HTHS oil may have responded in the slight decrease of fuel economy vs the 2.3 HTHS oil. That's not a lose-lose situation that's a statistically significant effect that warrants further investigation. Which, since this paper was published in 2013, I'm sure has already been started.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Evil CAFE their are already thousands of cars with ruined engines lined up heading to the junkyards because of those darn 20W oils...oh wait.


Strawmanning or trolling ?

Find anyone who has suggested that ....

 

[hattaresguy]

Half of the forum who wrings their hands about a 20W oil and uses something heavier.

Or the "in the rest of the world they use XYZ oil". OK so what? We are in the USA not the rest of the world.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Half of the forum who wrings their hands about a 20W oil and uses something heavier.

Or the "in the rest of the world they use XYZ oil". OK so what? We are in the USA not the rest of the world.


Specifically all the engines going to the junkyard...name a poster.

 

[Vuflanovsky]

Geez, you mean you can't be facetious and you have to be literal on here?? This board might be doomed.....

 

[kschachn]

He was being facetious. The "...oh wait" part - meaning it isn't happening.

 

[userfriendly]

One of the more popular options on new vehicles is remote start. With 0W16 engine oil, I can save fuel, eat breakfast and have a nice warm car with heated seats to jump into.
When that car or truck is headed to the scrap yard, I can buy another one with the money I saved using politically correct engine oil.

 

[Garak]

But you've wasted fuel by not bundling yourself into a rebreather apparatus to allow you to pull away immediately on a -40 Canadian morning without fogging your windshield.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
One of the more popular options on new vehicles is remote start. With 0W16 engine oil, I can save fuel, eat breakfast and have a nice warm car with heated seats to jump into.
When that car or truck is headed to the scrap yard, I can buy another one with the money I saved using politically correct engine oil.


My heated seats can't be left on after the engine is shut off, or at least I haven't figured out how to leave them on for a remote start. I'm happy about that though, because if my wife finds out there's a way she'll, be using the remote start even more.

 

[SandCastle]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
How will thinner oil effect timing chain guide wear? Timing chain guides seems to be the only semi-common oil related failures I find when researching SUV's to buy.


You may be on to something. None of the engine warranties that I've seen offered by the oil companies cover timing chain guides and tensioners. However, the chains themselves are covered. They must know that these are the weak points in the engine, and exclude them from coverage.

Which raises the question, are timing chains really better than belts when taking into account fragility of the plastic chain guides? If a belt tensioner starts failing, it can be detected more quickly and repaired more easily than an internal chain guide, IMO.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Evil CAFE there are already thousands of cars with ruined engines lined up heading to the junkyards because of those darn 20W oils...oh wait.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: SandCastle
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
How will thinner oil effect timing chain guide wear? Timing chain guides seems to be the only semi-common oil related failures I find when researching SUV's to buy.


You may be on to something. None of the engine warranties that I've seen offered by the oil companies cover timing chain guides and tensioners. However, the chains themselves are covered. They must know that these are the weak points in the engine, and exclude them from coverage.

Which raises the question, are timing chains really better than belts when taking into account fragility of the plastic chain guides? If a belt tensioner starts failing, it can be detected more quickly and repaired more easily than an internal chain guide, IMO.


I have never had chain guide failures using 0-20 oils. The real problem with guide failures is the varnish and sludge created by inferior oils, or way to long OCIs. Varnish and or sludge prevents proper oiling of the chains and guides. All the more reason to use quality synthetic oils, especially if doing longer OCIs. Also no mention of M1s warranty not covering chains and guides. Here's a link.

https://mobiloil.com/en/article/warranties/limited-warranty/mobil-1-oil-warranty

 

[SandCastle]

Originally Posted By: tig1


I have never had chain guide failures using 0-20 oils. The real problem with guide failures is the varnish and sludge created by inferior oils, or way to long OCIs. Varnish and or sludge prevents proper oiling of the chains and guides. All the more reason to use quality synthetic oils, especially if doing longer OCIs. Also no mention of M1s warranty not covering chains and guides. Here's a link.

https://mobiloil.com/en/article/warranties/limited-warranty/mobil-1-oil-warranty


Here is Castrol's warranty..

............IV. COVERAGE
Only the following listed engine parts are covered:
• Pistons and Rings
• Turbo Bearings
• Timing Chains
• Cylinder Lining or Bore
• Oil Pump
• Rods and Rod Bearings
• Balance Shafts & Push Rods
• Cam Shaft & Bearings
• Crankshaft & Bearings
• Valve Lifters
• Rocker Arms and Pivots
• Distributor Drive Gear
• Wrist Pins & Bushings
• Timing Gear or Sprockets
• Valve Stems & Guides
(Grinding adjustments excluded)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/fzautomotive/dealers/55e5a456cf442.pdf

 

[Gokhan]

"The Navy Times reported that the initial indication is that metal debris collected in an oil filter, causing the system to shut down, though the source of the fine metal debris was not known."

Someone put 0W-16 in the $360,000,000 ship? Lol

Brand-new Navy ship breaks down

 

[Gokhan]

While the below article is primarily for heavy-duty diesel engines, in which soot makes it harder to lower the viscosity without increasing the wear dramatically, your crankshaft may also exit from the side of your engine if you lower the viscosity too much.

http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/sep-2013/striking-the-right-balance

"We have also learned that reducing lubricant viscosity to improve fuel economy performance is not without consequence. As viscosity is lowered, the oil film thickness is reduced and its ability to keep the engine contact surfaces sufficiently apart from each other decreases.

This can lead to accelerated wear, and it really makes little sense to trade engine durability for fuel economy gains. Extensive engine testing with low viscosity lubricants has convinced us that the wear protection requirements of low viscosity oils are very different from those of conventional viscosity oils.

Fuel efficiency at the expense of engine durability makes no sense

In one test on a standard heavy-duty diesel engine, a 2.6 cP HTHS viscosity oil formulated with a conventional API CJ-4 additive technology resulted in catastrophic engine failure.

While the exact sequence of events leading to the engine failure could not be established, it is believed that excessive wear in one of the crank assembly components resulted in seizure of the crankshaft, causing it to break and exit from one side of the engine body. However, when the same engine test was run using SAE 15W-40 formulated with the same additive technology an excellent passing performance was observed.

This work made it clear that development of low viscosity lubricants had to be approached with extraordinary care to ensure uncompromised protection against engine wear. A fundamental understanding of the wear processes taking place on various contacting surfaces was seen as a critical enabler for the success of this venture."

 

[bunnspecial]

Originally Posted By: SandCastle
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
How will thinner oil effect timing chain guide wear? Timing chain guides seems to be the only semi-common oil related failures I find when researching SUV's to buy.


You may be on to something. None of the engine warranties that I've seen offered by the oil companies cover timing chain guides and tensioners. However, the chains themselves are covered. They must know that these are the weak points in the engine, and exclude them from coverage.

Which raises the question, are timing chains really better than belts when taking into account fragility of the plastic chain guides? If a belt tensioner starts failing, it can be detected more quickly and repaired more easily than an internal chain guide, IMO.


I've seen a couple of 400K+ 4.6L Fords torn down, and I think many of those had been running 5W-30 or 5W-20(whatever Ford was specing when the engines were new) and the timing chain components looked virtually brand new with the only real issue being some slight "stretch" in the chain.

At least Ford seems to get it right in this particular engine, but then it has a reputation for being pretty much bullet proof.