My Review of SAE Articles from 2006 and 2007

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
1,621
Location
Sarasota, Florida
I reviewed a host of recent SAE articles. Parentheses are my personal comments:

Study on Maximizing Exergy in Automotive Engines, Endo et al:
The use of waste heat for automobile engines that applied Rankine cycle from the viewpoint of exergy, available energy, was researched. Use of a Rankine (steam) cycle system in a hybrid car increased efficiency from 29 to 33 percent, a 13 percent increase. (Plus or minus 70 percent of automotive fuel energy still goes up in heat. The system is only beneficial at steady states. Response of the system was too slow for stepping on the gas as with city driving.)

Robust Optimization of Engine Lubrication System, Tao et al:
This was a study to optimize design frameworks for new engine lubrication system development. The intent was to prevent parasitic loses from over sized lubrication systems and minimize design time and expenses. The paper revolved around the appropriate amount of oil flow needed at various engine sites. (Hence the importance of oil flow.)

Raman Characterization of Anti-Wear Films Formed from Fresh and Aged Engine OIls, Uy et al:
This article sited research papers from work done in the 1980s. Some showing less tappet wear from used oils as compared to fresh oils. In this recent study (published in 2006) a GF-3 5W-20 grade lubricant with 0.097 % phosphorous was used on a ball-on-flat and cylinder-on-flat test. Fresh and age (artificially) accelerated oils were used. To me the fresh oil seemed to have less wear. They then showed that the chemical composition for the oil film was somewhat different for the test surfaces run on fresh verses aged oil. (The only problem is that this condition never occurs. Fresh oil is only used once on a brand new surface, from then on the surface is coated with additives and a chemical film - after which new fresh oil is added. The condition where used oil is added to brand new engines is just not done. And the fact that the film composition is ever so slightly different does not tell us anything about wear.)

Engine Wear Modeling with Sensitivity to Lubrication Chemistry: A theoretical Framework, Thomas et al:
Evidence was presented to help predict antiwear film evolution and wear performance. As contact severity increases, higher temperatures cause desorption of many physisorbed species, and mechanical shearing also removes the more weakly bound molecules. A key property of friction modifiers is their ability to be easily sheared away, thereby reducing friction. Under mild CONTACT, these highly polar friction modifier molecules will continuously re-adsorb, but under more sever contact regimes, the adsorption of antiwear additives becomes preferential. Similarly, as the contact severity increases further, the antiwear additives become less effective while the extreme pressure additives are activated. Antiwear film relies upon two competing rates: the rate of film formation and the rate of removal. When boundary lubrication conditions are favorable for film formation, the thickness tends to increase to a steady state value of around 100 nm. A number of physio-chemical processes are discussed. (What I see here is that the base oil - viscosity - is not in the equation. The oil is just the vehicle for the chemicals involved in boundary lubrication.)

Effect of Lubricant Properties and Lubricant Degradation on Piston Ring and Cylinder Bore Wear in a Spark-Ignition Engine, Schneider et al:
This contains a lot of useful information and I need to cover this at length and in detail so I will report this later.

aehaas
 
so as I asked in another thread, you are saying that the viscosity has nothing to do how strong the film is to protect the bearings but the additives are the only protections??
 
Oils are matched to engines at the expected, normal or average, operating temperatures. Most engines today are matched at 212 F oil sump temperature to a 20 or 30 wt. oil. Oils from grades 10 to 50 wt. would also work. The problem is still with the huge amount of wear that occurs during the 20 to 30 minute start up period. Thinner oils minimize this problem area. Cavitation, or the tearing out of large chucks of bearing material, is also minimized by the use of oils that thicken less after engine shut down. And by cold start I do not mean sub-zero temperatures but rather 70 F.

The main culprit to Excessive wear is the introduction of dirt particles larger than the oil film thickness. But the real dimension is that of the bearing clearance, not the oil thickness that counts in my book. Another critical dimension is the roughness of the finished bearing surfaces, the asperity levels, again, somewhat unrelated to the oil grade or viscosity.

aehaas
 
Quote:


The main culprit to Excessive wear is the introduction of dirt particles larger than the oil film thickness.




You have just given some ammo for "20wt is too thin" folks on this board
whistle.gif
 
Ok, so I'll say that 20 weight oil for Honda engines is great, but what about those Ford truck folks who tow 10,000+ lbs. of trailer and or boat behind them, going up hills and mountains doing 80 mph?

I somehow think a thicker weight oil would help those wear issues a little better than a thinner one.
 
Dad2

It all comes down to total engine cooling. IF the engine is going to run hot because of a shortage of radiator and sump ventilation cooling, it will run hotter so that the higher running temperature allows the undersized cooling system to eject the heat. A thicker oil in this hot engine will provide the optimum running viscosity at at the higher temperature. It's "a good thing".

If the engine is adequately cooled in the first place, and even when it's loaded it doesn't run really hot, then the higher viscosity oil will be too viscous and generate unnecessary drag and reduce bearing cooling below optimum. This will actually heat the engine up, thinning the oil a bit, but forcing it to run hotter than it needs to. This is a "bad thing".

That's why the idea of using thicker oil in hot weather or for hauling heavy loads is not always a good one. If you have a properly engineered cooling system, then the thinner oil will actually allow the engine to run cooler and still provide excellent lubrication.
 
AEHaas,

Once again, thanks for your informative post. I enjoy the insight you bring to the board (along with several other knowledgeable members).

I look forward to your report on "Effect of Lubricant Properties and Lubricant Degradation on Piston Ring and Cylinder Bore Wear in a Spark-Ignition Engine, Schneider et al". This, along with bearing concerns, interest me because of my elevated iron and lead readings. However, both are trending down after switching from Mobil 1 5w30 to GC (the Mobil 1 was the old 10.x cst formulation). When using the Mobil 1, 2 UOA's showed rising iron and lead (35 iron and 61 lead), and have since dropped to 5 iron and 14 lead after running several OCI's of GC in my '97 Maxima (VQ30). I had been under the impression that the thicker GC was the reason for the decrease, but after reading your posts, am now wondering if it may be more from a differing additive pack. I'll have to gather more information to try to make any reasonable conclusion.

Dave
 
Quote:


Oils are matched to engines at the expected, normal or average, operating temperatures. Most engines today are matched at 212 F oil sump temperature to a 20 or 30 wt. oil. Oils from grades 10 to 50 wt. would also work. The problem is still with the huge amount of wear that occurs during the 20 to 30 minute start up period. Thinner oils minimize this problem area. Cavitation, or the tearing out of large chucks of bearing material, is also minimized by the use of oils that thicken less after engine shut down. And by cold start I do not mean sub-zero temperatures but rather 70 F.




Very interesting. I have always been curious as to the oil required in my (now gone) 2002 M3 Coupe. These engines were hand built, had very close tolerances, high compression, and made 333HP from a 3.2L naturally aspirated engine. This engine required very expensive ($10-11/quart) Castroil oil, in 10W60. I guess based on what you wrote above the 10W was thin enough to protect the engine while starting and warming up, while the "60 part" was what the engine needed when in the operational range since engines on "M" cars were designed to run hard.

Does this apply to other engines as well?

My current 2000 BMW 540i calls for Castrol Synthec 5W30, but the manual also allows for 5W40 in the Summer time. Does using 5W50 and 10W60 (like some of the leftover Castrol 10W60) be good for my engine during the hot months here in Texas?

Will
 
Will, no problems using either of the 2 grades in you 540. They have more cojones than the 5-30.
 
The application is important. For example the Ferrari Enzo specifies a 10W-60 oil. If you never drive on the track and only around town then that oil is too thick. You can use a 30 grade oil in this case.

aehaas
 
Quote:


The main culprit to Excessive wear is the introduction of dirt particles larger than the oil film thickness. But the real dimension is that of the bearing clearance, not the oil thickness that counts in my book. Another critical dimension is the roughness of the finished bearing surfaces, the asperity levels, again, somewhat unrelated to the oil grade or viscosity.




From Motor Trends road test of the Lexus LS460:

Quote:


The from-scratch 1UR-FSE V-8 is the world's first engine with electric intake-cam phasing. The new motors control cam-lobe position to within 0.00004 inch immediately from start-up--hydraulic phasers (as on the exhaust) are far less accurate with cold oil at low pressure. Port and direct fuel-injection are employed to optimize for light-load fuel economy and power respectively. Piston pins and crankshaft bearing surfaces are mirror-polished, and cylinder bores are cork-polished to leave traces of the rough-honing, in which an oil film resides--all of which reduces friction enough to allow use of 0W20-weight motor oil to improve fuel economy.




This would seem to indicate that optimum pre-build preparation of bearing surfaces as well as cylinder bores is beneficial (if not a prerequisite) to using low viscosity oils.
 
My aim is to educate people to use the correct oil for Their Application. I want to show that the use of thinner oils when used properly can actually minimize wear especially for city or U.S. type highway driving. We should not be falsely afraid of thinner oils - a common thinking that is hard to change.

Blanket statements as “you need a more robust oil as a 20W-50 XYZ” must be clearly defined as to why this may be true. And in most cases it is incorrectly advised. Thinner oils do allow for more MPG out of a given engine and allow for greater BHP often without greater wear. And I wish to get people out of the thinking that there is a big difference in an oil when the 100 degree C viscosity is 10 verses 11. The additive package is more important than the viscosity yet the viscosity is (almost) all anybody ever discusses.

I try to show that there are not many differences between current mineral based and synthetic oils but that certain criteria may sway you to use one over another.

And the list goes on.

aehaas
 
Quote:


Ok, so I'll say that 20 weight oil for Honda engines is great, but what about those Ford truck folks who tow 10,000+ lbs. of trailer and or boat behind them, going up hills and mountains doing 80 mph?

I somehow think a thicker weight oil would help those wear issues a little better than a thinner one.


You left out pedal to the metal.
cool.gif
 
Quote:


Ok, so I'll say that 20 weight oil for Honda engines is great, but what about those Ford truck folks who tow 10,000+ lbs. of trailer and or boat behind them, going up hills and mountains doing 80 mph? I somehow think a thicker weight oil would help those wear issues a little better than a thinner one.




The posted UOAs of 5w20s used under just such conditions don't support your conclusion. Do a search in the UOA section and you'll see what I mean. One of the best 5w20 UOAs ever posted was a big Ford pickup with the V10 that did lots of towing in summer heat.
 
Quote:


G-Man,

Lets say that diesel FORD truck had 100K miles of heavy duty towing, would 5w20 oil still be the best choice of oil VIS ??




If the engine was designed to run on 5w20 and that was the recommended grade (as in the case of the gasoline V10 I was referencing), my answer would be YES.
 
I have to agree with G-Man. In all the UOA we have seen of 5W20 in applications calling for 5W20 it has done great! I still do not like oW20 or 5W20 and will not use them but I can not fault their performance where specified. Now in the same vechile that G-Man is referenceing I belive he also ran 15W40. The 15W40 did not do any betteror worse then the 5W20. So the thin oil crowd has to equally conceed that thicker oils are not going to hurt anything even if they may not help either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top