One Dodge running 5W20 rewrites all the engineering texts in history ?

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by SatinSilver
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I don't think Shannow has ever framed it in a manner that would indicate that "bad things would happen", simply that a lower grade allows for more wear in certain areas. If one can digest that point without jumping to the conclusion that he's not implying (pile of failed engines) then all is well. It's that fundamental misinterpretation that results in these sort of engagements.


Please take this to PM if you feel the need to post incessantly. You've stated your points in the thread and now is the time to move on instead of wasting bandwidth. If you disagree then start your own site instead of filling this one up with posts. You're not supposed to post over and over and over in the same thread. State your point, maybe clarify a few things/answer a few questions then move on. Common courtesy which contradicts your username. Whew!


Please feel free to use the notify button if it bothers you. Nobody is twisting your arm to participate in this thread either. If my posts bother you, use the ignore function, plenty of options at your disposal, go wild.

 

[SatinSilver]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Please feel free to use the notify button if it bothers you. Nobody is twisting your arm to participate in this thread either. If my posts bother you, use the ignore function, plenty of options at your disposal, go wild.


Please see the below link on how to PM along with some other useful tips:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/faq

Take this for diarrhea of the mouth.

 

[CharlieBauer]

In my opinion, SatinSilver has the best 3 posts in this thread.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
If you look at the advanced threads it's mainly these few advanced folks going back and forth creating the length with some of the less advanced folks adding their $0.02 to the subject. I was trying to get at that there is far more of these $0.02 users than the advanced users in numbers or we would see a heck of a lot more advanced users making the threads far longer than the few folks that are currently.

I'm not offended by what Shannow said, I just dug me heels in on the subject because I stated my case and agreed with his papers but provided and argument as to why this doesn't translate well into the real world in terms of benefit to folks unless they want to run their engines for what is considered forever. He was the one that got all bent out of shape over it and then started this ridiculous thread to which I started my own to provide at least BITOG users experiences with 20wt's to further support my argument.

I don't doubt that he's an asset to the board. I just was having a lively discussion with him and he started to get bent out of shape over it because I wouldn't agree with his posts when I had a valid point. There is no need for that and it shouldn't be taken that way.



He generally doesn't do "lively discussion", FWIW. Look at the facts, discuss the facts, if you don't agree, present contrary facts...etc. So I can see why it didn't go well

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by SatinSilver
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Please feel free to use the notify button if it bothers you. Nobody is twisting your arm to participate in this thread either. If my posts bother you, use the ignore function, plenty of options at your disposal, go wild.


Please see the below link on how to PM along with some other useful tips:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/faq


Please see the same link on how to use the "Notify" function or how to "block" a user if their posting bothers you.

 

[StevieC]

I presented the contrary facts which he didn't want to admit was valid. The fact is that 99% of folks using the spec'ed 20wt oil under normal conditions will see no benefit switching to a 30wt both in the typical life cycle for an engine before junking or even a good time past that and that it would take many miles more than the junk point to realize the benefit of the 30wt. But like my brother who is an engineer I suspect Shannow also gets lost in the absolute instead of the real world "Does it really matter in 99% of cases".

 

[SatinSilver]

Originally Posted by CharlieBauer
In my opinion, SatinSilver has the best 3 posts in this thread.


Thank you kind sir, gentleman.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted by SatinSilver
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I don't think Shannow has ever framed it in a manner that would indicate that "bad things would happen", simply that a lower grade allows for more wear in certain areas. If one can digest that point without jumping to the conclusion that he's not implying (pile of failed engines) then all is well. It's that fundamental misinterpretation that results in these sort of engagements.


Please take this to PM if you feel the need to post incessantly. You've stated your points in the thread and now is the time to move on instead of wasting bandwidth. If you disagree then start your own site instead of filling this one up with posts. You're not supposed to post over and over and over in the same thread. State your point, maybe clarify a few things/answer a few questions then move on. Common courtesy which contradicts your username. Whew!

It is not up to you to decide how much any member should post in a thread. It is up to you to decide what you want to read. I'm amazed that anyone needs to be told this.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
As for engines imploding just past the junk points what I meant by this is that if the 20wt's were such wear causing oils the wear would make sure that the engines died shortly after the typical 200K mile junk point and that we just don't see that even well past 200K miles where 20's were used and that it would take a heck of a long time for this extra wear to be apparent making it essentially moot for the vast majority of users including the high mileage folks here on BITOG.

As a scientific discussion it's fine but it should be prefaced with how it affects the majority of drivers because there are varying levels of folks that read here and the way that Shannow is going about it makes it appear that using anything but the thicker weights is going to have terrible consequences when this just isn't the case, again for 99% of folks and even those high mileage folks here on BITOG. This just leads to the same style of argument that was here over a decade ago regarding using 20w50 instead of 30wt's because thicker is better and now it's 30's or 40's versus 20's.

I know you understand what I'm saying but I don't think Shannow does or he wouldn't be pushing his papers so hard when it's meaningless for the 99%


Honestly, where do you get off...I've made my position clear...if the car lasts to the junkyard, the owner saves a few dollars in the bargain, it doesn't matter whether it's got 50,000 or 150,000 miles left on it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Tribology is a philosophical science, not an antidotal science.

 

[Shannow]

re providing data...
How many people on the board still espouse that oil carries away heat from the bearings as opposed to generating heat IN the bearings.
How many people talk about "start-up flow"

You yourself use them

You stated that there was no difference in 20s for wear.

Then I provided evidence of materials and engineering changes.

Then you claimed that yes, they changed all those, and the result was no difference in wear.

Your "position" has thus been a movable feast, with "imploding engines" as your go to hysterical hyperbole, while trying to whack down a strawman that you are attributing to me.

If someone posts "go with 0W20, because it "cools the engine more, flows better on startup, and was tested in Death Valley towing 5,000lb trailers", I will counter...on the assumption that there are people out there who do not believe in ignorance being bliss, or defer to authority because I've got a Ferrarri.

 

[StevieC]

I went on to define that it was for the average daily driver spec'ed for a 20 weight operated under normal conditions. Go back and look. Don't pick and choose.

Second for the flow, I said I did a freezer test and the one flowed better than the other at that extreme temperature and both we 0w. Nothing more. Don't twist things. To which your answer was to talk about positive displacement and how it didn't matter.

You gave the impression that if it was lower than a 30wt that it wouldn't survive as long as a 20wt. I called you out on that by explaining for the majority of the population operating under normal conditions in their daily drivers where a 20wt is spec'ed it wouldn't be any issue to and past the junk point of 200K miles unless we were talking about running the engine to say 1,000,000 miles. To which you dug in your heals and kept referring to the papers you keep citing.

I'm going to stop here because otherwise we will just keep going in circles.

 

[nap]

Stevie, some gentlemen here expect that when you quote a figure you can support it by quoting some credible source. So, where did that 99% (of cars that make it to the junkyard without ever needing engine repairs) come from?

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by nap
Stevie, some gentlemen here expect that when you quote a figure you can support it by quoting some credible source. So, where did that 99% (of cars that make it to the junkyard without ever needing engine repairs) come from?


This is based on a number of things such as the 20wt UOA's here, the high miles on vehicles accumulate on 20wt oils and the fact that OE's in North America are spec'ing 20wt's for most vehicles. The majority use whatever bulk 20wt there is let alone Synthetic like a good number of folks here use and we don't hear OE's back peddling the majority of engines to 30wt's unless there is a specific problem where it wasn't engineered properly which I mentioned.

Further we don't hear about engines living shorter lives even when kept past the average junk life of 200K miles. Trust me we would have heard about this in the media just like Nissan CVT's or >> type issues and that simply isn't happening.

Furthermore of the UOA's we see we don't see drastic increases in metals with 20wt's and yes I know this isn't a complete picture of all the wear going on in the engine and that dismantling the engine and taking absolute measurements in all areas to see how it's being affected is the only way, but certainly if engines were only living to the junk point or not far after we would see drastically increased wear using a 20wt over a 30wt both in the metals we can measure in a UOA and the ones we can't that would require measuring tolerances with the engine being torn apart.

That is unless magically 20wt oils only cause wear that is perceptible to the range outside of UOA's which I find extremely hard to believe.

Also when I talk about increase in wear in a UOA I'm not talking a few PPM. I'm talking about hundreds of PPM or higher and we aren't seeing that with the 20wt UOA's here.

If there was an actual study done on the amount of engines that use 20wt's and their life expectancy both to the normal throw away point and there afterward I would certainly post it but I haven't seen one. What leads me to believe that I'm correct in what I stated above is that we have had 20wt's for over a decade now without mass engine longevity being compromised and there is movement for 16 weights now which wouldn't be happening if 20wt's were evil like the "Thickies" claim.

And to put money where my mouth is, I'm running a "Thin like water" 0w20 in my brand new $65K Highlander which I ran all summer at sustained highway speeds for hundreds of kilometers at a time in one of the hottest summers on record. I also did this same "Thin like water" 5w20 in my Journey. It's what the manufacturer's call for and with all the miles I do I'm confident it will be just fine and I will get more engine life out of the vehicle than I ever wanted and that for me is a really long long time.

If my Journey's UOA is any indication, at least in the range it can show the wear metals were fantastic. Who knows though if it would have seen complete bearing failure etc. if I was able to keep it on the road. (killed in an accident). I'm betting it would have had a long life like my Santa Fe.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by StevieC
... and there is movement for 16 weights now which wouldn't be happening if 20wt's were evil like the "Thickies" claim.


And has been discussed and shown in other threads, as the viscosity keeps getting lower, more emphasis is put on friction modifying and anti,wear additives because the engine protection from the viscosity factor is diminished. It's an ever increasing challenge to maintain an "acceptible" amount of wear as oils become thinner.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
... and there is movement for 16 weights now which wouldn't be happening if 20wt's were evil like the "Thickies" claim.


And has been discussed and shown in other threads, as the viscosity keeps getting lower, more emphasis is put on friction modifying and anti,wear additives because the engine protection from the viscosity factor is diminished. It's an ever increasing challenge to maintain an "acceptible" amount of wear as oils become thinner.


As long the overall oil both with the base and the additives performs then what's the issue and why does that warrant a 30wt in fear?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by StevieC
This just leads to the same style of argument that was here over a decade ago regarding using 20w50 instead of 30wt's because thicker is better and now it's 30's or 40's versus 20's.

That does hold true. I've read manuals from the 1970s talking about thinner oil choice for fuel economy. Even from a non-technical standpoint, diminishing returns still applies. Fuel economy is important, but, as I've said before, consumers are stupid. Outside of BITOG, the average person knows nothing about motor oil. You'll find a few just follow the manual without understanding, but at least that's something.

When an OEM specs 0w-20 for North America and ask/recommend/demand/require people not deviate, there's certainly fuel economy there, and that may be the prime motivator. But, they also have to appeal to the least common denominator. You and I both know that an A3/B4 from Shell's own portfolio isn't going to hurt a currently sold Chrysler product. They also know perfectly well that a 20w-50 would work in the summer here, or an SAE 30 or 15w40. You know how it goes, though. A Canadian manual lists those choices as options, some darned fool will be running SAE 40 in a Saskatchewan winter and be screaming at Chrysler for what happened, be it for a minor inconvenience of not starting or something worse.

The current grading system is weak, but Joe Public doesn't understand it anyway, nor would they understand a CCS/MRV and HTHS system. We here who pay attention can be fairly certain of HTHS and where on the CCS/MRV spectrum any oil is just by specification. I've had parts people tell me 0w-40 was too thin for my Audi in the summer, but 10w-30 ILSAC would be fine. Now, if an OEM said to use an oil with a minimum stated HTHS, of an API, ILSAC, or ACEA standard from whatever arbitrary year or newer, with a CCS/MRV value suitable for one's climate, a lot of BITOGers would have no problem, but the general public would be totally out of their depth.

But, we pay attention to those little things, so we also sometimes pay attention to the little extra bits of wear or potential wear that really don't matter in a pig's eye. You put on a lot of miles, so fuel economy, even immeasurable improvements, do matter. There are competing purposes when specifying a motor oil, unfortunately. Zero wear and unlimited OCIs and no frictional losses and no pumping losses and a penny a quart delivered to your home aren't on the horizon.

 

[StevieC]

The diminishing returns aren't realized until way way way after the junk points of most vehicles. There are high milers right here on BITOG that have done it on 20 weights. PROOF!

I wasn't arguing that their isn't increased wear, just that it's a non-issue in the majority of cases even well out to a really high mileage so why change to a 30wt in fear, especially in Alberta winter where it could be counter intuitive.

 

[dogememe]

Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by StevieC
This just leads to the same style of argument that was here over a decade ago regarding using 20w50 instead of 30wt's because thicker is better and now it's 30's or 40's versus 20's.

That does hold true. I've read manuals from the 1970s talking about thinner oil choice for fuel economy. Even from a non-technical standpoint, diminishing returns still applies. Fuel economy is important, but, as I've said before, consumers are stupid. Outside of BITOG, the average person knows nothing about motor oil. You'll find a few just follow the manual without understanding, but at least that's something.

When an OEM specs 0w-20 for North America and ask/recommend/demand/require people not deviate, there's certainly fuel economy there, and that may be the prime motivator. But, they also have to appeal to the least common denominator. You and I both know that an A3/B4 from Shell's own portfolio isn't going to hurt a currently sold Chrysler product. They also know perfectly well that a 20w-50 would work in the summer here, or an SAE 30 or 15w40. You know how it goes, though. A Canadian manual lists those choices as options, some darned fool will be running SAE 40 in a Saskatchewan winter and be screaming at Chrysler for what happened, be it for a minor inconvenience of not starting or something worse.

The current grading system is weak, but Joe Public doesn't understand it anyway, nor would they understand a CCS/MRV and HTHS system. We here who pay attention can be fairly certain of HTHS and where on the CCS/MRV spectrum any oil is just by specification. I've had parts people tell me 0w-40 was too thin for my Audi in the summer, but 10w-30 ILSAC would be fine. Now, if an OEM said to use an oil with a minimum stated HTHS, of an API, ILSAC, or ACEA standard from whatever arbitrary year or newer, with a CCS/MRV value suitable for one's climate, a lot of BITOGers would have no problem, but the general public would be totally out of their depth.

But, we pay attention to those little things, so we also sometimes pay attention to the little extra bits of wear or potential wear that really don't matter in a pig's eye. You put on a lot of miles, so fuel economy, even immeasurable improvements, do matter. There are competing purposes when specifying a motor oil, unfortunately. Zero wear and unlimited OCIs and no frictional losses and no pumping losses and a penny a quart delivered to your home aren't on the horizon.

Excellent post.

 

[JAG]

Below are plots of total friction, which is the sum of fluid friction and asperity contact friction, of a piston/ring in a liner, as a function of crank angle and viscosity. The second one is a zoomed-in version of the first.

During most of the stroke, it is in the hydrodynamic regime, but at TDC its boundary lubrication because of the high temp., high pressure...high ring loads, and low speed. During most of the stroke, the thicker the oil, the higher the total friction since it is entirely fluid friction. In contrast, at TDC, the thicker the oil, the lower the total friction, because the asperity contact friction is reduced and it dominates over the fluid friction. Peak total friction is highest for the thinnest oil, because of the spike near/at TDC. There is asperity contact and there is wear, which tends to go up as asperity contact pressure goes up. Antiwear additives are critical for preventing wear and not all are equally good at it. A thinner oil with better antiwear additives may or may not provide less wear here than a thicker one with worse additives. Friction modifiers reduce friction associated with asperity contact. They provide more benefit to to thinner oils than thicker oils because of the increased boundary/mixed/EHL lubrication caused by the thinner oils.

Back to the figures below. Total friction averaged over the entire stroke is lower for the lower viscosity oils. That's why thinner oils, within reason, provide fuel economy improvements in the piston/ring/liner parts of an engine.