Thick oil and filter media damage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Not confusing if you keep in mind at what temperature those viscosity numbers are associated with. Just a way to grade cold and hot viscosity and compare to other oils with with the same marking convention. Cold oil is always going to be more viscous than hot oil no matter what the Xw-Y rating is.

Well OK if you say so, but I think that link that irv posted illustrates the confusion pretty well.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Not confusing if you keep in mind at what temperature those viscosity numbers are associated with. Just a way to grade cold and hot viscosity and compare to other oils with with the same marking convention. Cold oil is always going to be more viscous than hot oil no matter what the Xw-Y rating is.

Well OK if you say so, but I think that link that irv posted illustrates the confusion pretty well.


Yeah, the info in that link is confusing because they don't explain that the two numbers in the rating are associated with two different temperatures of the oil. This explains it better - LINK
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
If thick oil caused media tearing, there'd be the same issue during a WOT run at operating temps.


Apples and oranges. I ask about cold starts, not hot oil WOT runs.


Not at all.

The bypass should be functioning for both events.. thus not allowing the media to fail.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: car51
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: tig1
I see media damage from some filters here from time to time. Was wondering if oil thicker than recommended by the engine builders could cause media damage as the oil pump is forcing oil through the filter?

No, in the past I have seen oil filters last just fine handling 20W-50 oil and 80-100 psi. No tears in any, other than a Fram from the 80's

I am VERY surprised at the tearing media epidemic we have seen the last couple years!

Quality control at PUROLATOR as I’ve cut and posted, witnessed is job # 0 that is ZERO. Why I would not use Motorcraft filters at all even if paid to
wink.gif


32.gif
Not interested in in what you pay for.

Originally Posted By: car51
Don’t care, if you read post I SAID I would NOT run purolator, or Motorcraft if someone paid me to!!!

32.gif
31.gif

And certain people sound like a broken record and are running it into the ground when they keep bringing up a certain filter company's failures/shortcomings, even when the thread has nothing to do with that at all.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Not confusing if you keep in mind at what temperature those viscosity numbers are associated with. Just a way to grade cold and hot viscosity and compare to other oils with with the same marking convention. Cold oil is always going to be more viscous than hot oil no matter what the Xw-Y rating is.

Well OK if you say so, but I think that link that irv posted illustrates the confusion pretty well.

Yeah, the info in that link is confusing because they don't explain that the two numbers in the rating are associated with two different temperatures of the oil. This explains it better - LINK

I'd say that Amsoil page is just as bad as the rest. For example it says "a 5W-30 motor oil performs like a SAE 5 motor oil would perform at the cold temperature specified", which is not correct. There is no SAE 5 motor oil just as there is no SAE 0 or SAE 10 motor oil.

This explanation although less simplistic is correct:

http://www.viscopedia.com/viscosity-tables/substances/sae-viscosity-grades/

One thing the misinformation does is contribute to the oft-said notion that a "0 weight" oil is too thin for an engine.
 
No, they're definitely right about that. 0W is way too light. I started to pour some info the oil fill on my engine the other day, and it came back up out of the engine and back into the bottle.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Not confusing if you keep in mind at what temperature those viscosity numbers are associated with. Just a way to grade cold and hot viscosity and compare to other oils with with the same marking convention. Cold oil is always going to be more viscous than hot oil no matter what the Xw-Y rating is.

Well OK if you say so, but I think that link that irv posted illustrates the confusion pretty well.

Yeah, the info in that link is confusing because they don't explain that the two numbers in the rating are associated with two different temperatures of the oil. This explains it better - LINK

I'd say that Amsoil page is just as bad as the rest. For example it says "a 5W-30 motor oil performs like a SAE 5 motor oil would perform at the cold temperature specified", which is not correct. There is no SAE 5 motor oil just as there is no SAE 0 or SAE 10 motor oil.

This explanation although less simplistic is correct:

http://www.viscopedia.com/viscosity-tables/substances/sae-viscosity-grades/

One thing the misinformation does is contribute to the oft-said notion that a "0 weight" oil is too thin for an engine.


Semantics ... they both are conveying the same basic message. The SAE rating (Xw-Y format) is describing how the oil flows cold and hot (ie, what's the viscosity at 40 C and 100 C). That article isn't real technical either because of the statement "10W refers to the low-temperature viscosity ("Winter"), 40 refers to the high-temperature viscosity ("Summer")."

The "high temperature viscosity" is measured/classified at 100 deg C (212 F), which can be achieved any time of the year inside an engine, not just in the "summer". There is no "S" in the rating, therefore no such thing as a "Summer" rating. The "W" (winter/cold temp) viscosity is measured/classified at 40 deg C (104 F) - hardly "winter". The Amsoil article does a better job at explaining it IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Semantics ... they both are conveying the same basic message. The SAE rating (Xw-Y format) is describing how the oil flows cold and hot (ie, what's the viscosity at 40 C and 100 C). That article isn't real technical either because of the statement "10W refers to the low-temperature viscosity ("Winter"), 40 refers to the high-temperature viscosity ("Summer")."

The "high temperature viscosity" is measured/classified at 100 deg C (212 F), which can be achieved any time of the year inside an engine, not just in the "summer". There is no "S" in the rating, therefore no such thing as a "Summer" rating. The "W" (winter/cold temp) viscosity is measured/classified at 40 deg C (104 F) - hardly "winter". The Amsoil article does a better job at explaining it IMO.

I think your semantics upstage mine, but OK.

There is no SAE 0, nor SAE 5, nor SAE 10, so to say it "performs" like one at the specified temperature makes no sense. It's not how it works, and it just contributes to the idea that "0W" oil is "thin" at cold temperatures when in fact it may very well be thicker than a 5W oil depending on what temperature is being compared. It contributes to the mistaken notion that you start off with "SAE 5" oil and add viscosity improvers till you get a 30 weight to make 5W-30 oil. It misleads the reader by oversimplifying something that in reality isn't that way. That is what I object to, but if you like that comparison you can stick to it as apparently a lot of people seem to want to do.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Semantics ... they both are conveying the same basic message. The SAE rating (Xw-Y format) is describing how the oil flows cold and hot (ie, what's the viscosity at 40 C and 100 C). That article isn't real technical either because of the statement "10W refers to the low-temperature viscosity ("Winter"), 40 refers to the high-temperature viscosity ("Summer")."

The "high temperature viscosity" is measured/classified at 100 deg C (212 F), which can be achieved any time of the year inside an engine, not just in the "summer". There is no "S" in the rating, therefore no such thing as a "Summer" rating. The "W" (winter/cold temp) viscosity is measured/classified at 40 deg C (104 F) - hardly "winter". The Amsoil article does a better job at explaining it IMO.

I think your semantics upstage mine, but OK.

There is no SAE 0, nor SAE 5, nor SAE 10, so to say it "performs" like one at the specified temperature makes no sense. It's not how it works, and it just contributes to the idea that "0W" oil is "thin" at cold temperatures when in fact it may very well be thicker than a 5W oil depending on what temperature is being compared. It contributes to the mistaken notion that you start off with "SAE 5" oil and add viscosity improvers till you get a 30 weight to make 5W-30 oil. It misleads the reader by oversimplifying something that in reality isn't that way. That is what I object to, but if you like that comparison you can stick to it as apparently a lot of people seem to want to do.

Like I said, some semantics involved. You're taking them too literally. All they are saying is that a multi-grade 5W-30 oil will flow at 40C to receive a viscosity "grade" of "5" and will flow at 100C to receive a viscosity "grade" of "30". See chart below.

The "W" behind the first number just means it's viscosity classification/grade is based on how it flows at 40C. The second number indicates it's viscosity classification/grade based on how it flows at 100C ... it's not rocket science.

0W is thinner at 40C than a 5W, and 5W is thinner at 40C than 10W, etc ... that's all the SAE rating is saying. The SAE rating is specifically defined at 40C and 100C so the rating makes sense for comparing different multi-grade oils. It's only "misleading" to people that don't understand the basic concept of the multi-viscosity rating.

 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The "W" behind the first number just means it's viscosity classification/grade is based on how it flows at 40C. The second number indicates it's viscosity classification/grade based on how it flows at 100C ... it's not rocket science.


No, that's not correct. For a multigrade oil, the xW number has nothing to do with anything at 40C, it is determined by an oil's pumpability at temperatures below 0C. The second number is determined by the oil's viscosity at 100C.

See http://www.viscopedia.com/viscosity-tables/substances/sae-viscosity-grades/

If you read the fine print underneath the chart you posted, it says 'The viscosity/temperature relationships are based on 95 VI oils and are usable only for monograde engine oils, gear oils, and other 95 VI oils'.
 
Originally Posted By: jeff78
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The "W" behind the first number just means it's viscosity classification/grade is based on how it flows at 40C. The second number indicates it's viscosity classification/grade based on how it flows at 100C ... it's not rocket science.


No, that's not correct. For a multigrade oil, the xW number has nothing to do with anything at 40C, it is determined by an oil's pumpability at temperatures below 0C. The second number is determined by the oil's viscosity at 100C.

See http://www.viscopedia.com/viscosity-tables/substances/sae-viscosity-grades/

If you read the fine print underneath the chart you posted, it says 'The viscosity/temperature relationships are based on 95 VI oils and are usable only for monograde engine oils, gear oils, and other 95 VI oils'.


Thanks for pointing that out ... however, it still boils down to the "W" rating number gives the consumer an indication of the oil's flowability in cold ("winter") weather, just as the Amsoil article pointed out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top