Doc Haas is a brilliant man !!!!! I know what it takes to get where he is, Dr.wise that is.
Optimizing as per Dr Haas
- Thread starter rjacket
- Start date
- Status
doodfood - The e39 m5, for one example, has a history of confusion (from the factory and never resolved by BMW) that their cars can run 10w60 or 5w30. Some factory cars had the 10w60 sticker, alot more had the 5w30 sticker. Dealerships did oil changes with both. Owners do oil changes with both.
There is confusion around this matter due to a ring re-design in ~2000.
The truth of the matter is that the engines run fine on either under even hard street driving (I won't go into track driving). The only known failure point on those engines is rod bearings, and it has happened fairly equally among both 10w60 users and 5w30 users (seems to happen a bit more with 10w60 users, but they tend to be the ones tracking the cars more too....).
In other words: the oil choice has made no difference in that M engine over 10 years with some racking up 150-200k+ miles on them now.
Granted, that's a fairly limited run. But my point is that it's a serious revving v8 engine and that owners truly don't experience an ownership difference if they run 5w30 or 10w60.
My knowledge of the e46 m3 is similar, in that besides the early batch of bearing failures (contributed to cold-oil and hard revving, or too high a redline, or several other factors), they are run on everything from 5w30 to 10w60 on the street with no recognizable differences. Granted, all choices are synthetic. My point is more about the viscosity itself.
There is confusion around this matter due to a ring re-design in ~2000.
The truth of the matter is that the engines run fine on either under even hard street driving (I won't go into track driving). The only known failure point on those engines is rod bearings, and it has happened fairly equally among both 10w60 users and 5w30 users (seems to happen a bit more with 10w60 users, but they tend to be the ones tracking the cars more too....).
In other words: the oil choice has made no difference in that M engine over 10 years with some racking up 150-200k+ miles on them now.
Granted, that's a fairly limited run. But my point is that it's a serious revving v8 engine and that owners truly don't experience an ownership difference if they run 5w30 or 10w60.
My knowledge of the e46 m3 is similar, in that besides the early batch of bearing failures (contributed to cold-oil and hard revving, or too high a redline, or several other factors), they are run on everything from 5w30 to 10w60 on the street with no recognizable differences. Granted, all choices are synthetic. My point is more about the viscosity itself.
I agree with mechtech2 and Jim Allen, oil temperature gauge is better to determine the oil viscosity for your car and your driving. In the absent of oil temperature gauge, your daily driving distances could be used to calculate the oil viscosity. If your daily driving distance is less than 8-10 miles, then you can safely use 1 weight lower.
dOOdfOOd - Oddly, only your M-engine comment posted at first.
You asked if I think it's a science. I'll express this: on a street driven stock or near-stock gasoline engine, I think that it does not matter which oil you choose if it's SL/SM approved and run for a duration suitable to the use and oil chosen. I don't think you will ever notice a difference with the engine, in the aggregate. Choosing an oil (or even a viscosity within any normal range) makes no difference, in those conditions. There is no true science there.
My point about synthetics is, again, what I've learned on here is that (as you said) short of duration, as a group called "synthetics", they are relatively the same as Dinos within duration differences. And 95% of people who buy them are using them for 50-60% of their true durations. Their touted benefits in other areas (sludge, cold flow, etc.) are miniscule differences compared to a similar SL/SM Dino oil outside of extreme conditions (i.e. arctic temps).
Lastly,
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
And aside from that, Dr. Haas can choose to run 10w60 or 0w20 in his street-driven cars without the engines really caring.
Doodfood: "This completely flies in the face of all the work he has done to compare oils in his cars. Again, what is your rationale?"
My response: His research is based upon UOAs (which are fairly useless for showing anythign related to engine longevity short of a filtration or coolant issue), and relatively low miles, on street driven cars and synthetic oils.
He's putting high-grade low viscosity oils into supercars, driving them for relatively low miles, and putting forth a finding based upon that situation. He's shown that the cars can run thing slike 0w20 without noticing....at the same time, we know from the manufacturers spec that they can run 10w60 without noticing.
So my point is: Dr. Haas has shown that he can run a 0w20 or a 10w60 in his supercars and they won't notice a difference (as far as his research can show, which AFAIK is based upon limited mileage).
You asked if I think it's a science. I'll express this: on a street driven stock or near-stock gasoline engine, I think that it does not matter which oil you choose if it's SL/SM approved and run for a duration suitable to the use and oil chosen. I don't think you will ever notice a difference with the engine, in the aggregate. Choosing an oil (or even a viscosity within any normal range) makes no difference, in those conditions. There is no true science there.
My point about synthetics is, again, what I've learned on here is that (as you said) short of duration, as a group called "synthetics", they are relatively the same as Dinos within duration differences. And 95% of people who buy them are using them for 50-60% of their true durations. Their touted benefits in other areas (sludge, cold flow, etc.) are miniscule differences compared to a similar SL/SM Dino oil outside of extreme conditions (i.e. arctic temps).
Lastly,
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
And aside from that, Dr. Haas can choose to run 10w60 or 0w20 in his street-driven cars without the engines really caring.
Doodfood: "This completely flies in the face of all the work he has done to compare oils in his cars. Again, what is your rationale?"
My response: His research is based upon UOAs (which are fairly useless for showing anythign related to engine longevity short of a filtration or coolant issue), and relatively low miles, on street driven cars and synthetic oils.
He's putting high-grade low viscosity oils into supercars, driving them for relatively low miles, and putting forth a finding based upon that situation. He's shown that the cars can run thing slike 0w20 without noticing....at the same time, we know from the manufacturers spec that they can run 10w60 without noticing.
So my point is: Dr. Haas has shown that he can run a 0w20 or a 10w60 in his supercars and they won't notice a difference (as far as his research can show, which AFAIK is based upon limited mileage).
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
doodfood - The e39 m5, for one example, has a history of confusion (from the factory and never resolved by BMW) that their cars can run 10w60 or 5w30. Some factory cars had the 10w60 sticker, alot more had the 5w30 sticker. Dealerships did oil changes with both. Owners do oil changes with both.
There is confusion around this matter due to a ring re-design in ~2000.
The truth of the matter is that the engines run fine on either under even hard street driving (I won't go into track driving). The only known failure point on those engines is rod bearings, and it has happened fairly equally among both 10w60 users and 5w30 users (seems to happen a bit more with 10w60 users, but they tend to be the ones tracking the cars more too....).
In other words: the oil choice has made no difference in that M engine over 10 years with some racking up 150-200k+ miles on them now.
Granted, that's a fairly limited run. But my point is that it's a serious revving v8 engine and that owners truly don't experience an ownership difference if they run 5w30 or 10w60.
My knowledge of the e46 m3 is similar, in that besides the early batch of bearing failures (contributed to cold-oil and hard revving, or too high a redline, or several other factors), they are run on everything from 5w30 to 10w60 on the street with no recognizable differences. Granted, all choices are synthetic. My point is more about the viscosity itself.
That all sounds like an argument for "maybe," but not "probably" as you said. I don't think anyone has the kind of statistical data required to make that kind of probability judgment.
On the E46 M3 in particular, the early bearing failures were attributed to manufacturing defects. Those were rectified. At around the same time, they realized that oil temps could approach 300º F, at which temp the 5w30 couldn't cut it. It was a good time to introduce Castrol TWS 10w-60, and then they stuck with it. CATERHAM posted a statement that he attributed to a BMW engineer, which said that if you drive the E46 M3 like a ninny, then the 5w30 should be fine (and also that you are driving the wrong car). This in no way means the 5w30 and 10w-60 are necessarily equivalent, even for "street driving." What is street driving? In what climate, what style, etc.? Many of the E46 M3 owners I know would indeed be just fine on the street with 5w30, and at the same time, I know at least one who definitely needs the 10w-60 even for street use.
My point is that it's misleading to say "the engine probably doesn't care about viscosity for street use" because that statement requires a lot of assumptions that you are not making explicit, and that goes double when you're talking about piston speeds exceeding those of Formula 1 engines (as in the E46 M3).
doodfood - The e39 m5, for one example, has a history of confusion (from the factory and never resolved by BMW) that their cars can run 10w60 or 5w30. Some factory cars had the 10w60 sticker, alot more had the 5w30 sticker. Dealerships did oil changes with both. Owners do oil changes with both.
There is confusion around this matter due to a ring re-design in ~2000.
The truth of the matter is that the engines run fine on either under even hard street driving (I won't go into track driving). The only known failure point on those engines is rod bearings, and it has happened fairly equally among both 10w60 users and 5w30 users (seems to happen a bit more with 10w60 users, but they tend to be the ones tracking the cars more too....).
In other words: the oil choice has made no difference in that M engine over 10 years with some racking up 150-200k+ miles on them now.
Granted, that's a fairly limited run. But my point is that it's a serious revving v8 engine and that owners truly don't experience an ownership difference if they run 5w30 or 10w60.
My knowledge of the e46 m3 is similar, in that besides the early batch of bearing failures (contributed to cold-oil and hard revving, or too high a redline, or several other factors), they are run on everything from 5w30 to 10w60 on the street with no recognizable differences. Granted, all choices are synthetic. My point is more about the viscosity itself.
That all sounds like an argument for "maybe," but not "probably" as you said. I don't think anyone has the kind of statistical data required to make that kind of probability judgment.
On the E46 M3 in particular, the early bearing failures were attributed to manufacturing defects. Those were rectified. At around the same time, they realized that oil temps could approach 300º F, at which temp the 5w30 couldn't cut it. It was a good time to introduce Castrol TWS 10w-60, and then they stuck with it. CATERHAM posted a statement that he attributed to a BMW engineer, which said that if you drive the E46 M3 like a ninny, then the 5w30 should be fine (and also that you are driving the wrong car). This in no way means the 5w30 and 10w-60 are necessarily equivalent, even for "street driving." What is street driving? In what climate, what style, etc.? Many of the E46 M3 owners I know would indeed be just fine on the street with 5w30, and at the same time, I know at least one who definitely needs the 10w-60 even for street use.
My point is that it's misleading to say "the engine probably doesn't care about viscosity for street use" because that statement requires a lot of assumptions that you are not making explicit, and that goes double when you're talking about piston speeds exceeding those of Formula 1 engines (as in the E46 M3).
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
dOOdfOOd - Oddly, only your M-engine comment posted at first.
Sorry about that. That was all I posted initially but I then decided to go back and say more.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
You asked if I think it's a science. I'll express this: on a street driven stock or near-stock gasoline engine, I think that it does not matter which oil you choose if it's SL/SM approved and run for a duration suitable to the use and oil chosen. I don't think you will ever notice a difference with the engine, in the aggregate. Choosing an oil (or even a viscosity within any normal range) makes no difference, in those conditions. There is no true science there.
How can you quote API standards and then say there is not a science? If you truly believe that, I think you should write to the API and tell them all to pack up and go home...
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
My point about synthetics is, again, what I've learned on here is that (as you said) short of duration, as a group called "synthetics", they are relatively the same as Dinos within duration differences. And 95% of people who buy them are using them for 50-60% of their true durations. Their touted benefits in other areas (sludge, cold flow, etc.) are miniscule differences compared to a similar SL/SM Dino oil outside of extreme conditions (i.e. arctic temps).
"Short of duration" is quite a big proviso to make. It's like saying "short of the face paint and props" while trying to make the point that clowns look just like people.
If you want to make a point about how people are using them, that's a different matter entirely.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
My response: His research is based upon UOAs (which are fairly useless for showing anythign related to engine longevity short of a filtration or coolant issue), and relatively low miles, on street driven cars and synthetic oils.
1. He pays quite a bit more for his UOAs and gets quite a lot more tests on better equipment than the rest of us.
2. He has undertaken to read and learn as much as he can, work with experts like Terry Dyson as well as the formulators and manufacturers themselves.
I don't think blanket generalizations about Blackstone UOAs that don't even include TBN, interpreted by the amateurs on BITOG, will apply to what he's doing.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
He's putting high-grade low viscosity oils into supercars, driving them for relatively low miles, and putting forth a finding based upon that situation. He's shown that the cars can run thing slike 0w20 without noticing....at the same time, we know from the manufacturers spec that they can run 10w60 without noticing.
So my point is: Dr. Haas has shown that he can run a 0w20 or a 10w60 in his supercars and they won't notice a difference (as far as his research can show, which AFAIK is based upon limited mileage).
This is a consistent and quite pervasive oversimplification of his conclusions. He never makes blanket statements like "this oil works just fine." He is always careful to note the conditions under which the oil works, and he very often says that longer trips or harder use would be a different story.
Moreover, his results provide at least some indication that, again under those specific circumstances, the engines DO care about viscosity -- as in, the thinner he goes, the less they seem to wear. None of it is conclusive of course, but there's certainly no reason at this stage to say the engines "don't notice."
dOOdfOOd - Oddly, only your M-engine comment posted at first.
Sorry about that. That was all I posted initially but I then decided to go back and say more.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
You asked if I think it's a science. I'll express this: on a street driven stock or near-stock gasoline engine, I think that it does not matter which oil you choose if it's SL/SM approved and run for a duration suitable to the use and oil chosen. I don't think you will ever notice a difference with the engine, in the aggregate. Choosing an oil (or even a viscosity within any normal range) makes no difference, in those conditions. There is no true science there.
How can you quote API standards and then say there is not a science? If you truly believe that, I think you should write to the API and tell them all to pack up and go home...
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
My point about synthetics is, again, what I've learned on here is that (as you said) short of duration, as a group called "synthetics", they are relatively the same as Dinos within duration differences. And 95% of people who buy them are using them for 50-60% of their true durations. Their touted benefits in other areas (sludge, cold flow, etc.) are miniscule differences compared to a similar SL/SM Dino oil outside of extreme conditions (i.e. arctic temps).
"Short of duration" is quite a big proviso to make. It's like saying "short of the face paint and props" while trying to make the point that clowns look just like people.
If you want to make a point about how people are using them, that's a different matter entirely.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
My response: His research is based upon UOAs (which are fairly useless for showing anythign related to engine longevity short of a filtration or coolant issue), and relatively low miles, on street driven cars and synthetic oils.
1. He pays quite a bit more for his UOAs and gets quite a lot more tests on better equipment than the rest of us.
2. He has undertaken to read and learn as much as he can, work with experts like Terry Dyson as well as the formulators and manufacturers themselves.
I don't think blanket generalizations about Blackstone UOAs that don't even include TBN, interpreted by the amateurs on BITOG, will apply to what he's doing.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
He's putting high-grade low viscosity oils into supercars, driving them for relatively low miles, and putting forth a finding based upon that situation. He's shown that the cars can run thing slike 0w20 without noticing....at the same time, we know from the manufacturers spec that they can run 10w60 without noticing.
So my point is: Dr. Haas has shown that he can run a 0w20 or a 10w60 in his supercars and they won't notice a difference (as far as his research can show, which AFAIK is based upon limited mileage).
This is a consistent and quite pervasive oversimplification of his conclusions. He never makes blanket statements like "this oil works just fine." He is always careful to note the conditions under which the oil works, and he very often says that longer trips or harder use would be a different story.
Moreover, his results provide at least some indication that, again under those specific circumstances, the engines DO care about viscosity -- as in, the thinner he goes, the less they seem to wear. None of it is conclusive of course, but there's certainly no reason at this stage to say the engines "don't notice."
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Joe and d00df00d: I want to add something which I feel has some value about the topic in which you speak.
Dr. Haas is a very well educated man. One with a lot resources; both financially an intellectually. He has a fine mastery of the written word, and his dissertations are nothing short of poetic.
HOWEVER
The people who READ his writings and start basing their own oil choices upon them do not necessarily understand even the things you two are disagreeing about even now.
While one is making a point about a gross oversimplification of the man's theories, the individual in question's take is likely vastly more complex than what many take away from the entire scope of the man's works.
That is, that while Haas has gone through a lot of trouble and work to get to where his research sits now, those who preach the merits of his work and quote it as gospel may not in fact, be arguing a point that the Dr. himself would agree with anyways.
To say that every man or woman who reads his papers understands the concepts and research and can follow the same reasoning and logic to put themselves in a similar situation is the biggest fallacy going. And in threads like this, I've witnessed what I think is often the fruit of that process many times. People who get a singular, simple message from Haas's writings, which I think truly lead you down a path that is anything but simple, and imply anything but a singular message.
I think those caveats, quirks and footnotes have been mentioned in both your posts in this thread. Which have had far more detail than any recent discussion I've witnessed about his writings that I can remember reading on this site.
Dr. Haas is a very well educated man. One with a lot resources; both financially an intellectually. He has a fine mastery of the written word, and his dissertations are nothing short of poetic.
HOWEVER
The people who READ his writings and start basing their own oil choices upon them do not necessarily understand even the things you two are disagreeing about even now.
While one is making a point about a gross oversimplification of the man's theories, the individual in question's take is likely vastly more complex than what many take away from the entire scope of the man's works.
That is, that while Haas has gone through a lot of trouble and work to get to where his research sits now, those who preach the merits of his work and quote it as gospel may not in fact, be arguing a point that the Dr. himself would agree with anyways.
To say that every man or woman who reads his papers understands the concepts and research and can follow the same reasoning and logic to put themselves in a similar situation is the biggest fallacy going. And in threads like this, I've witnessed what I think is often the fruit of that process many times. People who get a singular, simple message from Haas's writings, which I think truly lead you down a path that is anything but simple, and imply anything but a singular message.
I think those caveats, quirks and footnotes have been mentioned in both your posts in this thread. Which have had far more detail than any recent discussion I've witnessed about his writings that I can remember reading on this site.
dOOdfOOd - Let me make a distinction which I don't think I was clear enough on earlier:
SL/SM ratings - Science
Choosing a specific viscosity or oil, for a street driven car (even the e46 m3), based upon viscosity or brand and expecting any sort of notable difference in engine longevity under the same durations - not science (this is what most of BITOG does, so please understand I am simply saying that most of what is practiced on BITOG is a reflection of this approach).
Regarding Duration: That's the whole point though. Just about every oil meeting the specification (which the most basic commonly available dino oil does) will protect the engine fine under a very wide variety of operation conditions. Except that some oils can run longer than others, but most aren't pushings their oils to those durations so their choices are based upon...well, not science
There is absolutely a science behind oil formulation for street-driven machines. There is not really a science in choosing an oil for your street-driven machine that will make a difference in engine longevity. That was already taken care of in the formulation requirements.
And that is where my distinctions are applying: take out extreme conditions, and an oil ranging from a 0w20 or 20w50 can be applied to almost any of our vehicles for street-driven gasoline usage without a difference in engine longevity.
To your example regarding 300 degree operation: BMW currently specs a 5w30 or 5w40 for their 335i turbo, which will need 300 degree oil temps and more before entering a limp mode. And that's fairly easy to induce. And while they've had plenty of fuel pump failures, I have yet to read of any turbo or bearing failures related to lubrication breakdown at temp (on a stock car).
My point is simply this: For the END USER, there is no science in choosing commercially available oils that will produce a better result for your engine.
This is what I learned after spending alot of money and time on BITOG. That the END USER, short of an extreme condition, can simply pick any SM/SL approved oil, run it for the manufacturer recommended duration, and never experience a difference in engine longevity. (yes, there are particular exceptions to this, such as BMW who specs an oil which can last longer)
Additionally, within those approvals, you can run a wide range of viscosities without any notable negative or positive effects.
Joe
P.s. The whole point of my assertions is that those who swear one way or another, while staying within the realm of my statements, are creating meaningless differences for end users.
That's my feeling. And yes, there are exceptions and qualification.
SL/SM ratings - Science
Choosing a specific viscosity or oil, for a street driven car (even the e46 m3), based upon viscosity or brand and expecting any sort of notable difference in engine longevity under the same durations - not science (this is what most of BITOG does, so please understand I am simply saying that most of what is practiced on BITOG is a reflection of this approach).
Regarding Duration: That's the whole point though. Just about every oil meeting the specification (which the most basic commonly available dino oil does) will protect the engine fine under a very wide variety of operation conditions. Except that some oils can run longer than others, but most aren't pushings their oils to those durations so their choices are based upon...well, not science
There is absolutely a science behind oil formulation for street-driven machines. There is not really a science in choosing an oil for your street-driven machine that will make a difference in engine longevity. That was already taken care of in the formulation requirements.
And that is where my distinctions are applying: take out extreme conditions, and an oil ranging from a 0w20 or 20w50 can be applied to almost any of our vehicles for street-driven gasoline usage without a difference in engine longevity.
To your example regarding 300 degree operation: BMW currently specs a 5w30 or 5w40 for their 335i turbo, which will need 300 degree oil temps and more before entering a limp mode. And that's fairly easy to induce. And while they've had plenty of fuel pump failures, I have yet to read of any turbo or bearing failures related to lubrication breakdown at temp (on a stock car).
My point is simply this: For the END USER, there is no science in choosing commercially available oils that will produce a better result for your engine.
This is what I learned after spending alot of money and time on BITOG. That the END USER, short of an extreme condition, can simply pick any SM/SL approved oil, run it for the manufacturer recommended duration, and never experience a difference in engine longevity. (yes, there are particular exceptions to this, such as BMW who specs an oil which can last longer)
Additionally, within those approvals, you can run a wide range of viscosities without any notable negative or positive effects.
Joe
P.s. The whole point of my assertions is that those who swear one way or another, while staying within the realm of my statements, are creating meaningless differences for end users.
That's my feeling. And yes, there are exceptions and qualification.
I would say you will be safest using the viscosity and the oils rating that the manufacture recommends Simple and it will be the overall best to CYA as far as engine longevity. Yes you can drop the visc if you only drive your car like a grandma and only go 4 miles to the mall then shop for an hour then drive home. If you haven't noticed most all motor oils we use are multi visc. Which covers most all the temps you will be starting and operating your vehicle in.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
dOOdfOOd - Let me make a distinction which I don't think I was clear enough on earlier:
SL/SM ratings - Science
Choosing a specific viscosity or oil, for a street driven car (even the e46 m3), based upon viscosity or brand and expecting any sort of notable difference in engine longevity under the same durations - not science (this is what most of BITOG does, so please understand I am simply saying that most of what is practiced on BITOG is a reflection of this approach).
Ah, okay.
...So instead of writing to the API to tell them all to pack up and go home, you should be writing to the engineering departments at the auto makers. At a bare minimum, different engines will see different oil temps under expected use, and that will require different viscosity grades. It's impossible that there isn't a science behind it.
Now, if you want to say BITOGers don't go about it scientifically, I will agree with you 100%. That's quite a different claim.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
Regarding Duration: That's the whole point though. Just about every oil meeting the specification (which the most basic commonly available dino oil does) will protect the engine fine under a very wide variety of operation conditions. Except that some oils can run longer than others, but most aren't pushings their oils to those durations so their choices are based upon...well, not science
The argument is that the spec oil (including certifications/approvals AND viscosity grade) will work for the spec OCIs. That doesn't in any way preclude the possibility that a much better oil would last much longer.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
There is absolutely a science behind oil formulation for street-driven machines. There is not really a science in choosing an oil for your street-driven machine that will make a difference in engine longevity. That was already taken care of in the formulation requirements.
This seems like a self-contradictory set of statements (there's a science for oil formulation but not... choosing an oil?). Would you mind re-phrasing?
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
And that is where my distinctions are applying: take out extreme conditions, and an oil ranging from a 0w20 or 20w50 can be applied to almost any of our vehicles for street-driven gasoline usage without a difference in engine longevity.
That's a pretty bold claim...
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
To your example regarding 300 degree operation: BMW currently specs a 5w30 or 5w40 for their 335i turbo, which will need 300 degree oil temps and more before entering a limp mode. And that's fairly easy to induce. And while they've had plenty of fuel pump failures, I have yet to read of any turbo or bearing failures related to lubrication breakdown at temp (on a stock car).
If they go into limp mode as soon as they hit 300º F, it's not too surprising that you're not hearing of too many engine failures. Obviously the car is not made to run at that temp for hours on end. The M3 is. Plus, I'm pretty sure the 335i doesn't have anywhere near the piston speeds of an E46 M3, and it obviously has a lower specific output.
dOOdfOOd - Let me make a distinction which I don't think I was clear enough on earlier:
SL/SM ratings - Science
Choosing a specific viscosity or oil, for a street driven car (even the e46 m3), based upon viscosity or brand and expecting any sort of notable difference in engine longevity under the same durations - not science (this is what most of BITOG does, so please understand I am simply saying that most of what is practiced on BITOG is a reflection of this approach).
Ah, okay.
...So instead of writing to the API to tell them all to pack up and go home, you should be writing to the engineering departments at the auto makers. At a bare minimum, different engines will see different oil temps under expected use, and that will require different viscosity grades. It's impossible that there isn't a science behind it.
Now, if you want to say BITOGers don't go about it scientifically, I will agree with you 100%. That's quite a different claim.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
Regarding Duration: That's the whole point though. Just about every oil meeting the specification (which the most basic commonly available dino oil does) will protect the engine fine under a very wide variety of operation conditions. Except that some oils can run longer than others, but most aren't pushings their oils to those durations so their choices are based upon...well, not science
The argument is that the spec oil (including certifications/approvals AND viscosity grade) will work for the spec OCIs. That doesn't in any way preclude the possibility that a much better oil would last much longer.
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
There is absolutely a science behind oil formulation for street-driven machines. There is not really a science in choosing an oil for your street-driven machine that will make a difference in engine longevity. That was already taken care of in the formulation requirements.
This seems like a self-contradictory set of statements (there's a science for oil formulation but not... choosing an oil?). Would you mind re-phrasing?
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
And that is where my distinctions are applying: take out extreme conditions, and an oil ranging from a 0w20 or 20w50 can be applied to almost any of our vehicles for street-driven gasoline usage without a difference in engine longevity.
That's a pretty bold claim...
Originally Posted By: JoeFromPA
To your example regarding 300 degree operation: BMW currently specs a 5w30 or 5w40 for their 335i turbo, which will need 300 degree oil temps and more before entering a limp mode. And that's fairly easy to induce. And while they've had plenty of fuel pump failures, I have yet to read of any turbo or bearing failures related to lubrication breakdown at temp (on a stock car).
If they go into limp mode as soon as they hit 300º F, it's not too surprising that you're not hearing of too many engine failures. Obviously the car is not made to run at that temp for hours on end. The M3 is. Plus, I'm pretty sure the 335i doesn't have anywhere near the piston speeds of an E46 M3, and it obviously has a lower specific output.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Plus, I'm pretty sure the 335i doesn't have anywhere near the piston speeds of an E46 M3, and it obviously has a lower specific output.
BMW-claimed specific outputs are almost identical... And from dyno testing, the 335i definitely has the edge here. But I think you're right on the MPS spec.
Plus, I'm pretty sure the 335i doesn't have anywhere near the piston speeds of an E46 M3, and it obviously has a lower specific output.
BMW-claimed specific outputs are almost identical... And from dyno testing, the 335i definitely has the edge here. But I think you're right on the MPS spec.
The E46 M3 makes 343 hp in Europe, the only difference being some emissions-related stuff. That gives >107 hp/L. The 335i would have to make >321 hp at the crank to match that. Possible, but...
I know people have gotten some pretty impressive dyno numbers from it, but it's hard to compare dyno runs when you can't be sure all the conditions are the same.
I know people have gotten some pretty impressive dyno numbers from it, but it's hard to compare dyno runs when you can't be sure all the conditions are the same.
FYI - Be careful not to base Dr. Hass' writings and findings on his medical credentials, medical training and income as a surgeon. His chemical and oil knowledge and experience predates his medical training that is before BITOG was created.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The people who READ his writings and start basing their own oil choices upon them do not necessarily understand even the things you two are disagreeing about even now.
I definitely agree. And let's not forget that he's also tested specific oils (GC, Red Line, RLI) in specific applications while doing uoa's every 1k(?) miles.
I believe sometimes people make the mistake of running to Wally World to pick up whatever brand xW-20 and wonder why their experience and results aren't as good as his. There have been posts here to that effect.
-Dennis
The people who READ his writings and start basing their own oil choices upon them do not necessarily understand even the things you two are disagreeing about even now.
I definitely agree. And let's not forget that he's also tested specific oils (GC, Red Line, RLI) in specific applications while doing uoa's every 1k(?) miles.
I believe sometimes people make the mistake of running to Wally World to pick up whatever brand xW-20 and wonder why their experience and results aren't as good as his. There have been posts here to that effect.
-Dennis
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If your daily driving distance is less than 8-10 miles, then you can safely use 1 weight lower.
That could be so many of us.
If your daily driving distance is less than 8-10 miles, then you can safely use 1 weight lower.
That could be so many of us.
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If your daily driving distance is less than 8-10 miles, then you can safely use 1 weight lower.
So for example a 5W30 could be substituted with a...5W20 which then by extension could be in turn replaced with a...0W20?
If your daily driving distance is less than 8-10 miles, then you can safely use 1 weight lower.
So for example a 5W30 could be substituted with a...5W20 which then by extension could be in turn replaced with a...0W20?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
No, with a lighter 20 grade or, if/when available, a xW-10 weight.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question