Can 0w20 handle high RPMs

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

Your (and others have used) the strawman argument that you don't see thousands of dead cars on the road or in junk yards due to using xW-20 oil, and that guys get 250K+ miles on their vehicles using xW-20 oil. Fact is, did anyone actually determine if there was no wear difference in those engines compared to using a thicker oil in them over their lifetime? Like I've said many times, most engines will still run pretty good even if they are technically worn out per the service manual specs.


I forgot to address this. This would only be a strawman argument if it could be established that virtually all the cars that go to the yard, and having been fed 20wt oil, are in a more advanced state of wear than they would be be had they been fed 30wt oil or greater. That, I strongly suspect, can't be proven either way. I suspect, IMO, that there are cars of both descriptions, with or without "advanced" wear, but at the end of the day, that's essentially unknowable.

Continuing our foray into the terminology of argumentation,

your position is actually a "red herring". You're focusing on the unknowable state of the cars in the junkyard, while not addressing the fact that we've simply not seen the pattern of early engine failures (pre junkyard) that ought to exist by now, if 20wt wasn't performing well generally.


Except there are many enginering studies and controlled tests that have been performed to prove less engine wear results with increased viscosity (all other factors held constant) for the reasons mentioned throughout these discussions. Are there many official engineering studies showing otherwise. So that is better than proving it through "how many dead cars in the junkyard" statistics. At any rate, people using that argument are strawmanning and not ficused on actual engineering testing results under controlled conditions. You know, the stuff that results in "scary tables and graphs".

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Shannow
FFS...the "pile of failed engines"..."junkyard full of"...is ridiculous hyperbole slippery slope strawman that this board thrives on and certainly doesn't prove ANY point whatsoever.


It's utterly pointless trying to discuss anything in these threads.

Point to CAFE documentation...."show me the pile of failed engines"
Point to the EPA information..."show me the pile of failed engines"
Point to the NHTSA paper..."show me the pile of failed engines"
Point to Honda Papers..."show me the pile of failed engines".


So the only way to prove a fundamental engineering principal (that somehow is equivalent to evolution theory) is to personally dismantle a range of engines that have been run on various grades ????

Please...that's ludicrous.

I'll spin it....please pull apart a pile of failed engines and demonstrate that 20s, 16s, and 12s provide EXACTLY THE SAME WEAR PROTECTION...in spite of what the parties that I listed offer in their statements and papers...please prove it...it's your view.





Where are the statistics and reports of early wear on any engine running a 20wt oil? After a couple of decades of use I think we would have heard by now if there was any indication that these oils could not stand up to the demands of the engine.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

You respond to the strawman call with the same exact strawman. Provide your own statistics and reports disproving the stance that thicker oil protects engines better.
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Shannow
FFS...the "pile of failed engines"..."junkyard full of"...is ridiculous hyperbole slippery slope strawman that this board thrives on and certainly doesn't prove ANY point whatsoever.


It's utterly pointless trying to discuss anything in these threads.

Point to CAFE documentation...."show me the pile of failed engines"
Point to the EPA information..."show me the pile of failed engines"
Point to the NHTSA paper..."show me the pile of failed engines"
Point to Honda Papers..."show me the pile of failed engines".


So the only way to prove a fundamental engineering principal (that somehow is equivalent to evolution theory) is to personally dismantle a range of engines that have been run on various grades ????

Please...that's ludicrous.

I'll spin it....please pull apart a pile of failed engines and demonstrate that 20s, 16s, and 12s provide EXACTLY THE SAME WEAR PROTECTION...in spite of what the parties that I listed offer in their statements and papers...please prove it...it's your view.





Where are the statistics and reports of early wear on any engine running a 20wt oil? After a couple of decades of use I think we would have heard by now if there was any indication that these oils could not stand up to the demands of the engine.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
You respond to the strawman call with the same exact strawman. Provide your own statistics and reports disproving the stance that thicker oil protects engines better.
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Shannow
FFS...the "pile of failed engines"..."junkyard full of"...is ridiculous hyperbole slippery slope strawman that this board thrives on and certainly doesn't prove ANY point whatsoever.


It's utterly pointless trying to discuss anything in these threads.

Point to CAFE documentation...."show me the pile of failed engines"
Point to the EPA information..."show me the pile of failed engines"
Point to the NHTSA paper..."show me the pile of failed engines"
Point to Honda Papers..."show me the pile of failed engines".


So the only way to prove a fundamental engineering principal (that somehow is equivalent to evolution theory) is to personally dismantle a range of engines that have been run on various grades ????

Please...that's ludicrous.

I'll spin it....please pull apart a pile of failed engines and demonstrate that 20s, 16s, and 12s provide EXACTLY THE SAME WEAR PROTECTION...in spite of what the parties that I listed offer in their statements and papers...please prove it...it's your view.





Where are the statistics and reports of early wear on any engine running a 20wt oil? After a couple of decades of use I think we would have heard by now if there was any indication that these oils could not stand up to the demands of the engine.





And there it is. Straw against straw. Neither side has definite proof.

Anyway I've said what I believe and you've had your say as well. I think we have arrived at a quandary.

 

[Shannow]

Look at everything that the sources that I've provided repeatedly over the years...tht and fundamental engineering principals.

They are ALL stating that it's for economy/CO2, and ALL offer that it must be done while offering "acceptable wear" (that's Honda's words).

The directions (economy and wear) are that which they are, and whether I've done side by side pull downs at the junkyard to see whether there was 200,000 or 50,000 remnant miles at the point of junking it is irrelevant.

If the owner saves a few hundred in gas during that time...it's a win win.

If you "believe" that there's no trade-off, asking for the pile of failed engines is not bolstering your case...gather your own data, papers etc. tht PROVE that there's no trade-off...and you won't...they all go in one direction.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
You respond to the strawman call with the same exact strawman. Provide your own statistics and reports disproving the stance that thicker oil protects engines better.

No sir, the proof lies not in statistics and reports, but rather in the "deafening silence" of the lack of cars dying before they should. Not talking about whether the rusted out, worn out cars in the yard have more wear in their engines if they got 20wt instead of 30, that's a different (but related) question, but one that will never get a good look.

Remember the hue and cry that arose back when Toyota had two engines that had a tendency to sludge up easily with mis-treatment and neglect? That went on for years. Controversy on the internet, class action lawsuits, reputations distorted and damaged, and on and on.

Imagine what would have happened if, say around 2005, a good half-dozen years plus into the wide-spread recommendation and use of xw-20 oils, engines had started failing prematurely, and it had been linked to the purported inadequacy of 20wt oils. The class-actions and the internet clamor would still be going on to this day. Such a calamity could easily have sunk either Ford or Honda.

What really happened? Almost nothing. Sure, a few engine-vehicle combos proved themselves ill-suited to lighter oils, and that's it. Otherwise, a DEAFENING SILENCE, which persists to this day. When judges instruct jurors, one of the "standard instructions" (given in all cases) is to the effect that jurors are to consider, "the evidence, [or] the lack of evidence . . . in reaching a verdict." Resorting to a strawman argument, or any other rhetorical device is not needed. The lack of evidence proving 20wt oils generally inadequate speaks for itself, and pretty conclusively so at this point -- in 2019.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by PimTac
And there it is. Straw against straw. Neither side has definite proof.


The dozens of engineering test papers (with scary plots) posted in these discussions. That is not strawman proof, but the "no piles of smoked engines in the junkyard" certainly is. If there wasn't any wear difference due to viscosity all those technical papers would prove that's the case.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Look at everything that the sources that I've provided repeatedly over the years...tht and fundamental engineering principals.
Thank you for chiming in. I'm not being argumentative for argument's sake -- I'm trying to learn more because I like this stuff, and I'm NOT an engineer. But I do recall, for example, the "engines" courses we took in Naval flight training (back in the early 80s for me). Lubrication started with what oil and grease were (pretty basic) and advanced to details like why you don't set low prop rpm with the throttle wide open. T-28s, radial piston engine and all, were still in use (but being retired), so all the heavy piston stuff was still in the curriculum. I recall being warned about damaging the engine the same way you can damage a stick-shift car by lugging it in high gear. I don't recall the terminology used, but I believe it was a reference to there being enough pressure that the oil film failed and the engine was forced from stable hydrodynamic lubrication into boundary "mode" with following metal-on-metal damage? If you'd care to comment, I'd seriously like to hear it.

Turning back to this topic, and what I actually don't understand, is whether the idea was that, even in stable hydrodynamic lubrication, a 20 is still less protective than a 30, OR whether the idea was that, like when lugging, it is easier with a 20 to squeeze out the oil and then hit boundary lubrication -- or something else totally?

Originally Posted by Shannow
They are ALL stating that it's for economy/CO2, and ALL offer that it must be done while offering "acceptable wear" (that's Honda's words).
I assume the "they" you are citing is the car makers, right? As for the people here on the board, I've already had one poster recommend to me that I should go ahead and change to 0w30 now to "get ahead" with preventing wear in the new Prius. . . Further, it sure would be interesting to know what magnitude of wear Honda considers "acceptable". I realize we'll probably never know, but given Honda's reliability rep, I'd think it's probably pretty conservative.

Originally Posted by Shannow
The directions (economy and wear) are that which they are, and whether I've done side by side pull downs at the junkyard to see whether there was 200,000 or 50,000 remnant miles at the point of junking it is irrelevant.
Sure, agreed, absolutely irrelevant, but as I recently posted above, isn't the real issue the fact that there is no substantial mass of failures taking 20wt cars to the junkyard earlier than they should have gone there?

Originally Posted by Shannow
If you "believe" that there's no trade-off, asking for the pile of failed engines is not bolstering your case...gather your own data, papers etc. tht PROVE that there's no trade-off...and you won't...they all go in one direction.
Of course, there are no free lunches, I get that. Candidly, I really didn't think of this in those terms before. From this perspective, though, it still looks like a really good trade-off, not one that demands that I immediately switch to a 30wt oil.

OK, since, believe it or not, I am a pretty open minded person, I have a question, if you're game. Applying your expertise in tribology (I mean that seriously and respectfully, NOT as a snide sarcastic discussion board jab!) if you had my car, a 2018 Prius with a whopping 1,000 miles on the odo, what grade of oil would you consider as a good alternative to the strongly recommended 0w-20? The manual has the "high speed" and "extreme load" weasel words, but lacks any definitions or parameters for those. By "good alternative," I mean that which would minimize what Honda calls "acceptable wear". Or maybe just a parameter (like a good target HTHS for example).

Thanks, if you're still reading, and for the quality contributions you've made to this board and its content for as long as I've been here!

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by PimTac
And there it is. Straw against straw. Neither side has definite proof.


The dozens of engineering test papers (with scary plots) posted in these discussions. That is not strawman proof, but the "no piles of smoked engines in the junkyard" certainly is. If there wasn't any wear difference due to viscosity all those technical papers would prove that's the case.

No, it's still not a strawman; repetition doesn't make it so. What the empty junkyards establish -- plainly -- is that whatever wear the studies qualify and quantify, it is insufficient to cause any appreciable number of cars to make an early trip to the junkyard. Nobody here has yet offered a factual rebuttal to the "empty junkyards" fact. Trying to slap a label on it (strawman, baloney, whatever you prefer) is just name-calling. Facts that prove it wrong might work, but so far, none have been offered. Another form of deafening silence.

 

[OilUzer]

Based on my research, 0Wx20 is for cars going to the grocery store/mall ... typical rpm of which never exceeds %50 of the red line rpm. No high speed (we have speed limits), no Italian driving (1st/2nd gear red lining), very light & occasional towing ... Kind of like tame/controlled driving including most of my own driving .
That's the typical household driver in the US.

If you are outside the above category, you will need a better performing oil (i.e. not 0Wx20).

I likes me some hths plus some moly! Yummy

 

[Pinoak]

Originally Posted by Doublehaul
Both trucks see lots of highway driving...and lots of off road driving...and will see starts of -30F several times every winter.

Doesn't the consideration of high RPM depend on the engine in question? Perhaps I should just stick with 0w20...you make a valid point. Im over thinking this...but then...i am on an oil forum at 2:30 am

0w30 or 5w30 would be a good compromise for you.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by PimTac
And there it is. Straw against straw. Neither side has definite proof.

The dozens of engineering test papers (with scary plots) posted in these discussions. That is not strawman proof, but the "no piles of smoked engines in the junkyard" certainly is. If there wasn't any wear difference due to viscosity all those technical papers would prove that's the case.

No, it's still not a strawman; repetition doesn't make it so. What the empty junkyards establish -- plainly -- is that whatever wear the studies qualify and quantify, it is insufficient to cause any appreciable number of cars to make an early trip to the junkyard. Nobody here has yet offered a factual rebuttal to the "empty junkyards" fact. Trying to slap a label on it (strawman, baloney, whatever you prefer) is just name-calling. Facts that prove it wrong might work, but so far, none have been offered. Another form of deafening silence.


Now if Shannow said the same thing about the evidence of testing showing the wear benifits of thicker oil (and he and I have many times in these discussions, and with the linked engineering data and reports I've mentioned) you'd be all ears. Seems most of the engineering guys on this site have had huge debates about this in the past, and we are all pretty much on the same page. But instead you just put up a wall and come back with some strawman response to my comments. And yes, saying there are no huge number of failed engines using 20 wt is a strawman argument claiming that it's as good ss thicker oil because there's a huge difference between failed engines and more worn out engines.

The whole argument is that thicker oil will give better engine protection which will ultimately result in less wear. That's not a strawman because there is engineering proof of that. Where's the engineering proof that thinner oil doesn't result in more wear? Without that, all this talk about the junkyards not being full of cars with blown engines that used 20 wt is pure strawman. You need to come up with some solid engineering technical proof and contolled experimentation test results that shows that thicker oils (other factors held constant) do not result in less wear.

 

[tiger862]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
Based on my research, 0Wx20 is for cars going to the grocery store/mall ... typical rpm of which never exceeds %50 of the red line rpm. No high speed (we have speed limits), no Italian driving (1st/2nd gear red lining), very light & occasional towing ... Kind of like tame/controlled driving including most of my own driving .
That's the typical household driver in the US.

If you are outside the above category, you will need a better performing oil (i.e. not 0Wx20).

I likes me some hths plus some moly! Yummy

I have 7 year warranty on Caravan and it loves rpm
When I get on Interstate here if you don't get on it you get run over so rpms are over 5k and is warranted so i don't get the obsession with 5w30. I worked for a dealer when 5w20 first came out and same fear of oil grade and failure was everywhere but all the teenage Mustang drivers didn't have many engine failures just manual transmission that I have seen from used cars. Heck my niece that never was easy on cars as in no maintenance just gave her Kia to family with 175k all on 5w20 pennzoil 5w20 conventional with only changes were when oil got low and no sludge. Cops run 5w20 in Crown Victoria then turn them into smaller towns before hitting auction to public with over 100k some over then cab drivers take some and go 300k or more. Don't understand where the sky is falling as you say. Now we have turbo cars that rev now running 0w16. Best to run what makes you feel warm and fuzzy but others have warranty to follow so always follow owners manual in rare case of failure. I don't know of a dealer who will warranty an engine if customer brings in paperwork that states 5w30 is better than what manufacturers recommend.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Turning back to this topic, and what I actually don't understand, is whether the idea was that, even in stable hydrodynamic lubrication, a 20 is still less protective than a 30, OR whether the idea was that, like when lugging, it is easier with a 20 to squeeze out the oil and then hit boundary lubrication -- or something else totally?

I think the issue isn't really about whether or not you can theoretically push a 0W-20 oil as far as maybe a good 0w30 or 5w30. It's pretty obvious that it can go beyond its limits if you're pushing a car to 10/10ths racing it continuously and on a really hot day. Maybe even beyond the limits of that 5w30. And for those applications it might even make sense to put in something other than the OEM recommendation. Heck - you look at an owner's manual recommendation and they say to use only an API certified oil of a specific weight with the API donut and the ILSAC starburst. Yet there are people using oils from Red Line, Amsoil, etc that don't carry it - with various reasons given why that shouldn't be an issue.

There are cases where the oil itself is pushed beyond its limit, and that's where the antiwear additives bond to the surfaces and sacrifice themselves. But yeah - the primary duty that most drivers do it puttering it around, where the cooling system (which may include a coolant-fed oil cooler) is going to keep the oil from getting too hot.

You said it earlier. How many angels can you balance on the head of a pin? As a practical matter how is it really affecting people who drive their cars in a way that doesn't attract cops? I've been through various engineering exercises. There are a ton of things that are balanced, including ultimate durability, production costs, and cost of ownership. I see all these references to engineering papers. They're nice and all, but there's a difference between looking at everything under a microscope vs dealing with more practical aspects of car ownership. Is it using oil? Is it getting good fuel economy? In many ways this forum is a lousy place to discuss these practical aspects because many are looking at oil analysis results with a fine tooth comb looking for the tiniest thing that shows that they chose right or wrong when it comes to oil selection.

 

[JAG]

Here is a link to an interesting tribology paper: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...engine-wear-test-development#Post4781847

 

[IndyFan]

One thing I don't think anybody's thought of, unless I missed it. An oil cooler is more effective with a thinner oil. So, if running it hard on a hot day, a sufficiently sized oil cooler might keep the oil and engine in a better place in terms of heat. I think the oil cooling could be designed with a thin oil in mind and increase its ability to tolerate the higher stress, but maybe it could also have some benefit for the engine. I dunno. Just speculating. I know my Jeep 3.6, which specs 0w20, has a standard oil cooler and the hottest I've seen the oil, on the hottest summer day with me flogging it a bit was 222. I also saw that temperature peak when crawling on trails in low range in mid 90's temperatures. It's never registered hotter than that and didn't stay there for too long once the radiator fan got things headed the other direction. Just a thought. I don't run my Jeep on the track, but it can work pretty hard in other ways. I am currently running Mobil 1 AP 0w20 and I have absolutely no worries about it.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by JAG
Here is a link to an interesting tribology paper: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...engine-wear-test-development#Post4781847




Thanks for linking this. Some good info here

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by IndyFan
One thing I don't think anybody's thought of, unless I missed it. An oil cooler is more effective with a thinner oil. So, if running it hard on a hot day, a sufficiently sized oil cooler might keep the oil and engine in a better place in terms of heat. I think the oil cooling could be designed with a thin oil in mind and increase its ability to tolerate the higher stress, but maybe it could also have some benefit for the engine. I dunno. Just speculating. I know my Jeep 3.6, which specs 0w20, has a standard oil cooler and the hottest I've seen the oil, on the hottest summer day with me flogging it a bit was 222. I also saw that temperature peak when crawling on trails in low range in mid 90's temperatures. It's never registered hotter than that and didn't stay there for too long once the radiator fan got things headed the other direction. Just a thought. I don't run my Jeep on the track, but it can work pretty hard in other ways. I am currently running Mobil 1 AP 0w20 and I have absolutely no worries about it.

I've actually owned only two cars in my life (a 1995 Integra GS-R and a 2004 WRX) and both had oil coolers. I mean as in extremely obvious to anyone doing an oil change because the filter mounts right on the cooler.

Still - if you look at what Subaru has done recently, I believe they eliminated the oil cooler in the base WRX. But for that application they still recommend a "synthetic 5w30" when most of their range has shifted to 0W-20.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Get out of here with irradiated engine components and actual data about wear rates. We have anecdotes. That's apparently sufficient.
Originally Posted by JAG
Here is a link to an interesting tribology paper: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...engine-wear-test-development#Post4781847

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

Now if Shannow said the same thing about the evidence of testing showing the wear benifits of thicker oil (and he and I have many times in these discussions, and with the linked engineering data and reports I've mentioned) you'd be all ears.

I'll respond to what he says, when he says it, of course. I'm actually "all ears" for all of this, including what you have to say. But that's not the problem we're having here.

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Seems most of the engineering guys on this site have had huge debates about this in the past, and we are all pretty much on the same page. But instead you just put up a wall and come back with some strawman response to my comments.
And I am NOT an engineer. My knowledge, such as it is, came from the training I've received from the Navy in the past (extensive, but not degree material) and plenty of study (some here, even). Be that as it may, of course, I have to defer to bona fide engineering knowledge, especially when backed up with proper factual support.

For my part, I have a law degree and twenty-five years practicing the dark art of argumentation -- it's how you write effective appellate briefs and structure courtroom cases. That said, I DON'T need to defer as to these ugly dark arts. . . This is not a straw man problem, a phony target set up to be easily defeated. Neither one of our alleged straw men have gone down easily...

Nor is it a matter of "red herring" distractors. No, what we really have is a basic failure to properly join the issues. Sidenote: I have walked away from the legal profession in exhausted disgust -- all filled up with murderers, molesters, thieves, thugs and one actual cannibal -- that's how and why I'm back in the flying business and thrilled to be here!

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
And yes, saying there are no huge number of failed engines is a strawman argument because there's a huge difference between failed engines and more worn out engines.
Here, the failure to join issues comes into sharper focus. I say that if a car is in service until it's beyond practical or economic repair, and it hasn't failed because of the oil used, then the oil successfully did its job -- not just adequately, but fully. Even if there is some amount of added wear (Honda's "acceptable wear")? And if this is the case with millions upon millions of cars, then hasn't the oil been effective overall, at least from the owner's perspective? There's the simple basis for the "empty junkyards" observation. It's not cute rhetoric, it's a basic fact that anyone can see (maybe I should say NOT see).

You legitimately counter by pointing out that there's a decent body of evidence, which obviously you trust (not saying you shouldn't), that indicates that, in fact, some quantity of added wear comes with the use of the thinner oils. I have no principled basis for saying that's not true, generally, but I admit have reservations about whether that would be true in ALL cases. I'm thinking particularly that the cold climate cars and/or frequent starters might reasonably be exceptions.

My main point, though, is that we're going back and forth, essentially repeating ourselves, and not truly addressing one another's points. Dare I say that we both have reached an end point -- it's just not the same one and neither rebuts the other?

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
The whole argument is that thicker oil will give better engine protection which will ultimately result in less wear.
This surprises me a little, coming from an engineering or science guy, who'd I'd expect to be more precise and measured. What does "better" really mean? Terms need to be specific and defined. Beyond that, just what I said in the preceding two paragraphs. Of course, this is a discussion forum, not a PhD dissertation, so it's fair to allow some slack for brevity's sake. Or maybe I'm picking nits.

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
You need to come up with some solid engineering technical proof and contolled experimentation test results that shows that thicker oils (other factors held constant) do not result in less wear.

No, I disagree. First, that's not what I've been alleging. Second, as one of my flight instructors puts it, the best weather observation and forecast information system available is -- a window! I look at lots of weather data before I fly, but often, in seconds, my eyes tell me what I need to know. Similarly, I can plainly see that there aren't yet legions of cars dying early because they were fed 20wt oil. Do they also have some more wear than they would have had with a 30wt? Looks like that may be so for lots of them. But if so, does it really matter? I guess each of us would then have to define "really matters" for ourselves...

Hey, at least now, I'm not "arguing" with people who'd very literally slit my throat in a second if they thought they could get away with it! My old clients were such a joy -- to leave behind! At least I hope none of you yet want to slit my throat!