And they won't sell many vehicles if their engines have a reputation to fail before the competition.I would agree if engineers ran the companies. But, they don’t, the beam counters run the companies. It’s all about share price, sales and profit.
And they won't sell many vehicles if their engines have a reputation to fail before the competition.I would agree if engineers ran the companies. But, they don’t, the beam counters run the companies. It’s all about share price, sales and profit.
*Gm 3.6l and ford 3v 5.4l have entered the chat*And they won't sell many vehicles if their engines have a reputation to fail before the competition.
OK, let's put it another way..... What's the viscosity, (flow), difference between the 2 at the temperatures that I indicated? Someone somewhere must have tested this.That’s really somewhat of a nonsensical question. Pumping is at its core is binary, either it pumps or it does not. That was the issue back in the 1980s that drove a revision to to J300.
And the Hyundai/Kia theta engines. They are disparaged. From what I hear it a metallurgy thing. Not sure if changing the oil at 3000 miles vs 7500 miles will make a difference in these engines.*Gm 3.6l and ford 3v 5.4l have entered the chat*
If lowering the OCI would make a difference on the Theta-ii engines we'd see Hyundai making new recommendations as part of the recall. To my knowledge that hasn't happened. Still 7500 miles (at least on the NA 2.5L engines in the US)And the Hyundai/Kia theta engines. They are disparaged. From what I hear it a metallurgy thing. Not sure if changing the oil at 3000 miles vs 7500 miles will make a difference in these engines.
I guess they need to start thinking about piston ringsAnd they won't sell many vehicles if their engines have a reputation to fail before the competition.
Sure but again flow is not all that relevant. If the oil can be pumped it will flow. It only needs to be able to flow to the oil pump pickup. It’s why those freezer tests are largely irrelevant to engine operation.OK, let's put it another way..... What's the viscosity, (flow), difference between the 2 at the temperatures that I indicated? Someone somewhere must have tested this.
I'm guessing that 0W-16 at -20F would flow a lot slower, (hence thicker), than 0W-40 would at 65F. But I'm just guessing.
And if that's the case, one could assume that cars in frigid Winter climates would experience more startup wear over time, based on the simple fact the oil thickens up far more, thus taking longer to reach critical engine parts.
If I had some 0W-16 I would test this by putting some in the freezer, and leave some 0W-40 outside. (50F to 65F). Then see what's what. But I have zero use for any.
You're missing the point. Yes, it will flow, but how quickly. The thicker it is at startup, the harder it is to pump. And the harder it flows, the slower it will reach the already moving parts. Which is where most say the bulk of engine wear happens.... At startup.Sure but again flow is not all that relevant. If the oil can be pumped it will flow.
You're missing the point. Yes, it will flow, but how quickly. The thicker it is at startup, the harder it is to pump. And the harder it flows, the slower it will reach the already moving parts. Which is where most say the bulk of engine wear happens.... At startup.
In a frigid Winter climate the whole concept is to balance the viscosity to allow for easy enough starting and sufficient cold flow, but still not be too thin at operating temperatures that are often over 200F.
With that said, back to my original question. On the low temperature end of this, which is thicker.... Or, which will flow easier and quicker. 0W-16 at -20F, or 0W-40 at 65F? Obviously at operating temperature the 0W-16 will flow easier, (perhaps too easy), because it is much thinner.
You're missing the point. Yes, it will flow, but how quickly. The thicker it is at startup, the harder it is to pump. And the harder it flows, the slower it will reach the already moving parts. Which is where most say the bulk of engine wear happens.... At startup.
In a frigid Winter climate the whole concept is to balance the viscosity to allow for easy enough starting and sufficient cold flow, but still not be too thin at operating temperatures that are often over 200F.
With that said, back to my original question. On the low temperature end of this, which is thicker.... Or, which will flow easier and quicker. 0W-16 at -20F, or 0W-40 at 65F? Obviously at operating temperature the 0W-16 will flow easier, (perhaps too easy), because it is much thinner.
In your example, both 0W-16 and 0W-40 are 0W grade oils so they will both basically pump and flow the same at cold temperatures. 0W is the "thinnest" W rating in SAE J300. The engine manufacture recommends a W rating for a "down to" x deg F cold start. You obviously wouldn't want to use a higher W grade for cold temperature start-ups that it's not rated for because of the possible lack of flow to get to the pump pickup and pump inlet which is a pumpability factor. Once the oil gets to the PD pump, it will force the oil to all parts in the oiling system that are force fed by the pump. It will take more force to push thick oil through the system, and that's why the oil pressure is high with cold thick oil. If the pressure gets too high, the pump will hit pressure relief so it doesn't literally blow something up with excessive oil pressure. The lower the W rating, the better the oil will flow to the pump pickup and will also flow back to the sump and get to any parts that are "splash" lubricated instead of force fed by the pump.You're missing the point. Yes, it will flow, but how quickly. The thicker it is at startup, the harder it is to pump. And the harder it flows, the slower it will reach the already moving parts. Which is where most say the bulk of engine wear happens.... At startup.
That's the whole reason for multi-viscosity grade oils. W rating for the cold starts and the KV100 rating for operating temperatures.In a frigid Winter climate the whole concept is to balance the viscosity to allow for easy enough starting and sufficient cold flow, but still not be too thin at operating temperatures that are often over 200F.
0W grade is 0W grade, so in your example both 0W-16 and 0W-40 will both flow and pump basically the same at cold temperatures. If you really want to split hairs on a W rating between oils, then you'd have to look at the oil's spec sheets and see what the actual CCS and/or MRV viscosity is and compare them to each other. In your example, the 0W-40 will be thinner at 65F than the 0W-16 is at -20F because they are both a 0W "winter" grade per SAE J300. If both the 0W-16 and 0W-40 were at -20F and the engine was started, both would basically flow and pump the same, and as the oil warmed up from -20F to 212F (100C) the 0W-16 would be a 16 grade and the 0W-40 would be a 40 grade. Each would thin down from whatever their viscosity was at -20F to their KV rating at 100C (212F) viscosity.With that said, back to my original question. On the low temperature end of this, which is thicker.... Or, which will flow easier and quicker. 0W-16 at -20F, or 0W-40 at 65F? Obviously at operating temperature the 0W-16 will flow easier, (perhaps too easy), because it is much thinner.
The PF "cold oil races" give a slight indication on how the oil would flow into the evacuated cavity due to the pump shown in Zone 1 in the figure in my previous post. If the oil is so thick that it's like molasses and barely moves under the force of gravity, the pump could suck air in Zone 1 and then that causes a pumpability issue in the pickup tube. If the oil can't get to the pump inlet through the pick-up tube (or there's lots of air pockets) then there will be a lack of lubrication. If the W rating is correct for the start-up temperature, then there shouldn't be any problem. Don't try 20W-50 in a -25F start-up for instance.Sure but again flow is not all that relevant. If the oil can be pumped it will flow. It only needs to be able to flow to the oil pump pickup. It’s why those freezer tests are largely irrelevant to engine operation.
The oil, I suppose, is easy, but I am not seeing how premium fuel is going to help the problem.Oddly our 1.5T fuel diluter CRV DOES NOT fuel dilute
Premium fuel and good 0W-30
Too easy
Discussed previously.The oil, I suppose, is easy, but I am not seeing how premium fuel is going to help the problem.
Thanks! Please note that BITOG would be finished with a strict no "Discussed previously" policy. I tend to repeat my mistakes.Discussed previously.
More fuel enrichment with lower octane fuels, under boost.
Thanks! Please note that BITOG would be finished with a strict no "Discussed previously" policy. I tend to repeat my mistakes.
That is what I'm more or less referring to. You can pump anything through anything with enough power. Hell, today they can pump concrete over 1,000 ft. high when they build high rises....... If the oil is so thick that it's like molasses and barely moves under the force of gravity, the pump could suck air in Zone 1 and then that causes a pumpability issue in the pickup tube. If the oil can't get to the pump inlet through the pick-up tube (or there's lots of air pockets) then there will be a lack of lubrication. If the W rating is correct for the start-up temperature, then there shouldn't be any problem. Don't try 20W-50 in a -25F start-up for instance.
That is what I'm more or less referring to. You can pump anything through anything with enough power. Hell, today they can pump concrete over 1,000 ft. high when they build high rises.
But if the oil can't flow to the pump fast enough, it will suck wind, not oil as you pointed out. If it's -20F even 0W-16 is not going to flow like it would at room temperature. Nowhere close.