0w-40 observations in a 5w-30 recom'd vehicle...

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Interesting thread. I've used Mobil 1 0w-40 in my Acura with a small 1.8l engine before and noticed no difference in power/drag at all.


Yep, butt-dynos aren't always sensitive. If you switch to a 20 oil (from 40), you might see something like ~5% increase in power and fuel economy. Important for some people, others do not care. See http://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.82748!/file/IanTaylor.pdf

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
Sure, it runs rich for a litle bit when cold for fuel atomization reasons (and in open loop until the O2 sensor comes on line), but it's also fighting massive amounts of oil related friction/pumping losses compared to when it's warmed up.

Also remember that oil related drag is only a small portion of internal engine losses.


You are contradicting yourself here. That was exactly my point when I mentioned the massive cold viscosity spread. If the oil pumping loses were as huge as you make them out to be, the engine would have to be floored in order to stay idling, never mind driving under load. Remember, we are talking here about 1000 times heavier oil than operational viscosity. 1000 times, think about it, it's a huge increase.

The point is that oil pumping loses are relatively small compared to everything else, that is why engine can tolerate such huge viscosity spreads without as much as a hiccup.
Note that I never said that the thicker oils are as easy to pump as thinner oils, of course they are not, that is the very definition of viscosity, but in the grand scheme of things those differences are very hard to account for outside of a lab.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
If that was the case, then the engines would not be idling or would struggle to idle (no load) on cold starts. The viscosity spread just from 40F to 100F can be 10 fold. From 0F to 100F it could be close to a thousand fold .

Changing from 2.8 to 3.5 cSt will hardly be noticeable even on the dyno.


Disagree, and disagree on both points. Idle speed is a closed-loop control process, meaning a target idle RPM will be achieved with whatever fuel flow rate (power, aka energy flow rate) is necessary. Also, "hardly be noticeable" doesn't sound right, as peak power changes with viscosity, as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kETjPZP9Y shows, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrhoPKQLtfo videos, tip: Skip toward the end of the video for the result charts to read. Some difference, especially if you care about fuel economy & power, which some of us do.


Not on a carbureted engine it isn't. And having operated quite a few carbureted vehicles I most certainly haven't had to modify the idle speed when changing oil grades.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
If that was the case, then the engines would not be idling or would struggle to idle (no load) on cold starts. The viscosity spread just from 40F to 100F can be 10 fold. From 0F to 100F it could be close to a thousand fold .


Measure the fuel consumption of a cold engine/oil during a cold start, then measure the fuel consumption of that engine/oil hot at idle. Let me know how many times less fuel it's burning.


One glaring issue with that is cold start enrichment to light off the catalysts and keep the engine running when it is cold. This is one of the reasons a carburetor had a choke on it. Ever tried to warm up an engine when it is 10 degrees (celcius) out with a Dominator on it? There's a whole lot of pedal acrobatics necessary to keep it running until it is warmed up.

Not only that but poor ring seal as the pistons expand, fuel wash down on the walls....etc. Warm up is exactly that, a period in which things are warming up. And that period, particularly oil temp, can take quite a while depending on ambient temperature.

Quote:
Sure, it runs rich for a litle bit when cold for fuel atomization reasons (and in open loop until the O2 sensor comes on line), but it's also fighting massive amounts of oil related friction/pumping losses compared to when it's warmed up.

Also remember that oil related drag is only a small portion of internal engine losses.


Define massive? Are we talking 30,000cP -30C Canadian Winter massive or the difference between two grades of oil, which could be 75cSt at 40C? (the difference between M1 5w-20 and M1 15w-50).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Interesting thread. I've used Mobil 1 0w-40 in my Acura with a small 1.8l engine before and noticed no difference in power/drag at all.


Yep, butt-dynos aren't always sensitive. If you switch to a 20 oil (from 40), you might see something like ~5% increase in power and fuel economy. Important for some people, others do not care. See http://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.82748!/file/IanTaylor.pdf


Sorry, but as I noted, you aren't seeing a 20HP difference in going up two grades on a 400HP engine (5%). From what I've observed it is normally less than 10HP (like in the range of 3-5) and that's usually what is LOST as the engine heats up and the oil gets thinner because a hot engine, particularly one with forced induction, makes less power when hot.

My buddy's Mustang, naturally aspirated, stone cold, made just under 300RWHP with M1 0w-40 in the pan. The oil would have been around 40C, so the oil would have been about 75cSt. The car was already tuned and we were trying to get some more power out of it, so about 7 or 8 pulls later, back on the original tune the car was down 3HP over the base pull, as we never found any additional power with more timing or changing the fuel. The engine has no oil cooler and oil temperature was probably north of 100C, so under 13.5cSt.

These are real life examples.

 

[kschachn]

I know nothing about dynos (well we had one in college and I saw it being used once but that was all), so you can reliably detect a 1% change in output horsepower?

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Sorry, but as I noted, you aren't seeing a 20HP difference in going up two grades on a 400HP engine (5%). From what I've observed it is normally less than 10HP (like in the range of 3-5) and that's usually what is LOST as the engine heats up and the oil gets thinner because a hot engine, particularly one with forced induction, makes less power when hot.

My buddy's Mustang, naturally aspirated, stone cold, made just under 300RWHP with M1 0w-40 in the pan. The oil would have been around 40C, so the oil would have been about 75cSt. The car was already tuned and we were trying to get some more power out of it, so about 7 or 8 pulls later, back on the original tune the car was down 3HP over the base pull, as we never found any additional power with more timing or changing the fuel. The engine has no oil cooler and oil temperature was probably north of 100C, so under 13.5cSt.

These are real life examples.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Interesting thread. I've used Mobil 1 0w-40 in my Acura with a small 1.8l engine before and noticed no difference in power/drag at all.


Agreed.
You have the right idea.
A one grade increase in viscosity, which this would have been since your Integra would have had a 5w30 grade recommended for it when it was new, will have virtually no measurable effect on fuel economy nor any noticeable effect on power.
I've also gone up a grade with many engines many times and haven't seen any discernable differences in either fuel economy or performance, although the thicker grade typically makes for smoother and quieter operation.
This thread has really gotten to be a peeing contest since I last viewed it, though.

 

[fdcg27]

A 5% increase in power and fuel economy by simply going down two grades?
That isn't within the realm of possibility.
Even a 1% increase would be a stretch.
There, I thought that I'd join the peeing contest.

 

[Shannow]

I dunno, I've heard of a "massive" 4% from swapping out one 0W-20 with TGMO...swapping grades must be even "massiver"

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I dunno, I've heard of a "massive" 4% from swapping out one 0W-20 with TGMO...swapping grades must be even "massiver"


Since TGMO is an XOM product and since XOM obviously has technical resources exceeding those of Toyota when it comes to blending lubricating oils of any kind, why doesn't XOM offer a high VI formulation of its own?
Maybe an XAFE?
It can't be cost, since TGMO is easily found at prices comparable to M1 and I doubt that Toyota and its dealers are selling this oil at a loss.
What compromises are built into the TGMO formulation that make XOM reluctant to offer such an oil under its own M1 brand?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
I know nothing about dynos (well we had one in college and I saw it being used once but that was all), so you can reliably detect a 1% change in output horsepower?

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Sorry, but as I noted, you aren't seeing a 20HP difference in going up two grades on a 400HP engine (5%). From what I've observed it is normally less than 10HP (like in the range of 3-5) and that's usually what is LOST as the engine heats up and the oil gets thinner because a hot engine, particularly one with forced induction, makes less power when hot.

My buddy's Mustang, naturally aspirated, stone cold, made just under 300RWHP with M1 0w-40 in the pan. The oil would have been around 40C, so the oil would have been about 75cSt. The car was already tuned and we were trying to get some more power out of it, so about 7 or 8 pulls later, back on the original tune the car was down 3HP over the base pull, as we never found any additional power with more timing or changing the fuel. The engine has no oil cooler and oil temperature was probably north of 100C, so under 13.5cSt.

These are real life examples.


According to DynoJet (the machine I'm familiar with and the machine these runs were made on):

Quote:
There are generally two types of dynos that are used for performance verification and tuning, “inertia type loading”, such as the Dynojet 224x or 248, or “electric type loading”, such as a Mustang 250, 1100, Dyno Dynamics, or Dynojet 224xLC / 424xLC. Traditionally Dynojet has offered the inertia loading dynos, whereas Mustang Dynamometer and Dyno Dynamics have been electric type loading dynos. The major differences in the two types of dynos are their principals of operation. A true inertia dyno (such as the Dynojet 224x or 248) uses large steel rollers that contain mass. This mass is fixed, it can never change, and for those that remember high school physics, Force = Mass x Acceleration. Based on the time that is required to accelerate a mass (the steel drums in this case), you are effectively measuring force. Ok, so now that we have force, how does an inertia dyno come up with horsepower? Simple, force (lbs) multiplied by speed (ft/sec) effectively yields horsepower. Since every Dynojet dyno on the face of the earth has a mass that has been precisely quantified using a proprietary process, and that value is stored in the dyno software for each dyno, not only are the horsepower numbers consistent every morning, noon and night, but each and every Dynojet is relative to one another. Go ahead, take your car to 25 different Dynojet dynos, run it up, and I personally guarantee the horsepower will repeat to within 1/2 HP (no one else would dare
make that claim).


I don't know if I'd say the margin of error is quite that low but I DO know the machine was extremely consistent, not only with this car but with others I've seen on it including my own car.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I dunno, I've heard of a "massive" 4% from swapping out one 0W-20 with TGMO...swapping grades must be even "massiver"


Since TGMO is an XOM product and since XOM obviously has technical resources exceeding those of Toyota when it comes to blending lubricating oils of any kind, why doesn't XOM offer a high VI formulation of its own?
Maybe an XAFE?
It can't be cost, since TGMO is easily found at prices comparable to M1 and I doubt that Toyota and its dealers are selling this oil at a loss.
What compromises are built into the TGMO formulation that make XOM reluctant to offer such an oil under its own M1 brand?


I agree, interesting comment about compromises I never thought of it that way. I posted a similar comment sometime back and caught a lot of static for it. I look at it this way, if XOM thought it was superior to their AFE product they'd bottle and sell it under their own label. If the formula is protected, I'm sure the legal dept could find a workaround. JMO nothing more.

 

[fdcg27]

Who would've thought that a simple post about trying a forty in a car for which a thirty is recommended would end up at nine pages and counting?
This has devolved into a thick versus thin thread, as might have been expected.
All of the usual players are present.
I am guilty of stirring the pot a bit.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I dunno, I've heard of a "massive" 4% from swapping out one 0W-20 with TGMO...swapping grades must be even "massiver"

Thats different. TGMO is the Chuck Norris of engine oils.

 

[Blue_Angel]

Since I'm the one who carelessly tossed out the "massive" comment, let me quote myself:

Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
Sure, it runs rich for a little bit when cold for fuel atomization reasons (and in open loop until the O2 sensor comes on line), but it's also fighting massive amounts of oil related friction/pumping losses compared to when it's warmed up.


Notice I said "massive... ...compared to". I would say a tenfold increase is a "massive" increase.

Everything has to be read in context.

Here's a real life example of what oil viscosity can do at startup. I put TGMO 0W-20 in my '02 Corvette which has a hotter cam installed. Now when I say "cold start", keep that in Corvette context... it's a summer car and a 50-60F start is a cold start. Previously running M1 10w30 the car had a real lopey chop-chop idle for several minutes after starting. With 0W-20 in the engine almost all of the cold start drama is gone and it even idles noticeably smoother when hot, but the "massive" difference is when cold. Same engine starting at the same temperatures, much smoother idle.

That oil is known for its low viscosity at startup temps and I see that is at work here. There's no need to turn this into a TGMO thread (there are plenty of those), this is a viscosity thread. I would expect any oil that light to behave the same.

For those still not thinking along these lines, consider how smoothly your car idles with and without the AC running. Most small engine (four cylinder) cars develop a much rougher idle with the AC on, and most people can barely tell the difference in fuel economy with or without using AC. That compressor may put a bit more load on an engine than pumping thicker oil does, but the effect is the same.

I will also repeat the most important part of something I was onto earlier:

If you don't drive a manual transmission and rev match your own shifts you're unlikely to notice anything!

Driving a slushbox isolates you so much from what the engine is doing there's no way I would expect someone to feel an improvement. Some claim they have and I believe them, but the average shmoe driving an autobox car can't feel much of what the engine is doing to begin with, let alone be tuned in to subtle changes.

My Corvette is a different car with lighter oil, and that's going from a 30 to a 20. Rev-matching gears is so much quicker and requires less of a throttle input than before. I've owned this car since 2004 and have put over 100k miles on it in that time. The engine has never revved as freely as it does now.

I can also feel ABSOLUTELY NO POWER INCREASE AT ALL. Once you're pushing it hard it feels no different than it did with the 10w30 in it. If there was any OVERALL power gained by the switch to a lighter oil I'd need a dyno to tell... my butt sure can't.

At lighter loads when just loafing around and rowing through the gears, THAT'S where the car "feels" so much better. And as before, don't knock it unless you've tried it.

If you're not going to try it then stop telling people who have that they're wrong! How the heck could you tell someone that brussel sprouts taste bad if you've never eaten one? Try one, you just might like it!

 

[Blue_Angel]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I look at it this way, if XOM thought it was superior to their AFE product they'd bottle and sell it under their own label. If the formula is protected, I'm sure the legal dept could find a workaround. JMO nothing more.


Maybe, just maybe, Toyota isn't as worried about turning a profit from their oil sales and it costs more than AFE to make. If so, Mobil wouldn't bottle it and sell it as AFE since the cheaper to make AFE gives them higher markup?

Don't get me wrong, I like Mobil oil and I've used it for a long time, but I don't fool myself into thinking for a second that a large company with a thick accounting department would consider selling something that cost them more to produce than something else that was simply "good enough".

This isn't even my opinion, I know nothing about oil formulators and their business, just an alternate viewpoint. Now let's stop talking TGMO and get back to the topic at hand.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel


Everything has to be read in context.

Certainly.

Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
Here's a real life example of what oil viscosity can do at startup. I put TGMO 0W-20 in my '02 Corvette which has a hotter cam installed. Now when I say "cold start", keep that in Corvette context... it's a summer car and a 50-60F start is a cold start. Previously running M1 10w30 the car had a real lopey chop-chop idle for several minutes after starting. With 0W-20 in the engine almost all of the cold start drama is gone and it even idles noticeably smoother when hot, but the "massive" difference is when cold. Same engine starting at the same temperatures, much smoother idle.

That oil is known for its low viscosity at startup temps and I see that is at work here. There's no need to turn this into a TGMO thread (there are plenty of those), this is a viscosity thread. I would expect any oil that light to behave the same.


I must be numb. I started my Expedition in -30C (that's not a typo) in Quebec this past winter and aside from the power steering pump making noises that would make anybody cringe and the battery not being too keen on the endeavor it sounded and felt exactly like it always does. Oil in the pan was PU 5w30, which would have been 4,000cP, as that's the CCS value for that oil at that temperature.

I can go out and start it right now, with the same oil in the pan (I haven't even changed it yet! LOL!) and it will feel and sound the exact same (minus the power steering pump noise of course, LOL!)

Also, if we are citing cammed examples I had a TFS #1 in my H/C/I '87 Mustang GT. I ran it with 1.7's so it was about .530/.540 lift, but relatively mild duration (221/225) on a 112LSA. It had a decent lope to it. It sounded the exact same when it was cold or hot and whether I had 0w-20 or 5w-50 in the pan.

Do you have an H/V or H/V H/P pump in the 'vette? Something that would maybe make it "work" a bit more when cold? I was running the stock Ford pump, pan and pick-up.

Quote:
For those still not thinking along these lines, consider how smoothly your car idles with and without the AC running.


My cars all idle the same with the A/C on or off, LOL! You do notice the change in idle when the compressor engages, but that's just a blip/audible thing.

Quote:
Most small engine (four cylinder) cars develop a much rougher idle with the AC on, and most people can barely tell the difference in fuel economy with or without using AC. That compressor may put a bit more load on an engine than pumping thicker oil does, but the effect is the same.


Our Focus never did and the Subie doesn't?

I DO notice a fuel economy hit with the A/C though. And it is noticeable to me.

Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
I will also repeat the most important part of something I was onto earlier:

If you don't drive a manual transmission and rev match your own shifts you're unlikely to notice anything!

Driving a slushbox isolates you so much from what the engine is doing there's no way I would expect someone to feel an improvement. Some claim they have and I believe them, but the average shmoe driving an autobox car can't feel much of what the engine is doing to begin with, let alone be tuned in to subtle changes.

My Corvette is a different car with lighter oil, and that's going from a 30 to a 20. Rev-matching gears is so much quicker and requires less of a throttle input than before. I've owned this car since 2004 and have put over 100k miles on it in that time. The engine has never revved as freely as it does now.


I never could (feel a response/free rev difference between grades) with my Mustang (75mm BBK TB on it) and I certainly can't with the M5 but it has 8 TB's and is drive by wire and the grades used in the M5 have all been relatively close to each other (BMW 5w30, M1 0w-40, PU 5w-40). However the M5's I drove with 10w-60 in them didn't feel any less responsive.

Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
I can also feel ABSOLUTELY NO POWER INCREASE AT ALL. Once you're pushing it hard it feels no different than it did with the 10w30 in it. If there was any OVERALL power gained by the switch to a lighter oil I'd need a dyno to tell... my butt sure can't.

At lighter loads when just loafing around and rowing through the gears, THAT'S where the car "feels" so much better. And as before, don't knock it unless you've tried it.


I'm not "knocking it" but I have certainly tried it and can't relate, LOL

Originally Posted By: Blue_Angel
If you're not going to try it then stop telling people who have that they're wrong! How the heck could you tell someone that brussel sprouts taste bad if you've never eaten one? Try one, you just might like it!

Well that sort of ties into my earlier point about not recommending people run oil grades thinner than what is specified by the OEM unless they are WELL aware of the potential consequences, particularly when under warranty. Your 'vette is long out of warranty and never spec'd xW-20 anything. But you've embarked upon that journey knowingly, just like CATERHAM does with his projects and that's fine. It is advocating that approach for others that I have issue with. I'd never want to be the guy responsible for recommending something to somebody that falls outside the range of what the OEM specified and then they lunch their engine. I'd feel like an absolute bag of fecal matter.

Some guy puts TGMO in his F-body based on all the cheerleading for the product on this site and takes it to Laguna Seca and then spins a rod bearing, windows the block and he's down an engine. Not saying that WILL happen, but it is certainly a possibility. Especially if he's not somebody with the proper gauges to track oil temp and pressure and even if he does, isn't used to watching them.

Or maybe a more realistic example would be an M3 (known for rod bearing issues) that spec's 10w-60 using TGMO on the track, LOL! It could happen! I am quite certain many people take the advice doled out on this site as the Gospel.

 

[Ram01]

0-40 will out protect 5w30

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
....
Some guy puts TGMO in his F-body based on all the cheerleading for the product on this site and takes it to Laguna Seca and then spins a rod bearing, windows the block and he's down an engine. ...


For perspective, Mobil1 synthetic was ONLY offered in 5w-20 for the first 6 years. I never heard of stories people "spinning a rod bearing" then, and that was in an era where most people used 10w-40 or straight 30.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: ThirdeYe
Interesting thread. I've used Mobil 1 0w-40 in my Acura with a small 1.8l engine before and noticed no difference in power/drag at all.


Yep, butt-dynos aren't always sensitive. If you switch to a 20 oil (from 40), you might see something like ~5% increase in power and fuel economy. Important for some people, others do not care. See http://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.82748!/file/IanTaylor.pdf


Sorry, but as I noted, you aren't seeing a 20HP difference in going up two grades on a 400HP engine (5%). From what I've observed it is normally less than 10HP (like in the range of 3-5)
These are real life examples.


The ~5% figure I stated is correct, real life. The http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kETjPZP9Y got a 6% difference even amongst diff brands of oil in the same viscosity grade, yet, to be fair, I did "discount" their dyno runs in half, to a 2% diff amongst brands, then I added in some engineering studies over many years regarding going from a 40 to a 20 grade, with additional friction modifiers, to get another 3% possible difference, for a total of around 5% possible. Your results will vary based on which oils you choose, but its well known that less viscosity with more friction modifiers translates into more power and fuel economy, just a question of how much. If you care about a few percent, then you care, period.