Viscosity and climate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: lockguy
Im wondering why people tend to use a "thicker" or higher viscosity oil in hotter climate. The thermostat keeps the engine about the same operating temp whether in hotter or colder climates right?

To me, it is more of a decision of how much protection do you need vs effeciency savings...any thoughts?

It's not about using a thicker or higher viscosity oil in the hot summer months (or in a hotter climate generally) and therefore more protection but rather attempting to maintain a certain minimum operational viscosity.
Put simply, heavier oil grades may be necessary to compensate for the very much higher oil temp's that can occur with higher ambient temp's.
In vehicles with exposed sump's and without coolant/oil heat exchangers, the difference in maximum oils temp's can easily be as much as 50C or more between the frigid depths of winter and the mid-day heat under a blazing sun raising asphalt temp's to as much as 65C (and the above boundary air layer) of summer or more.

Every grade from 5W-20 to 20W-50 (0W oils weren't generally available yet) are specified for my older Porsche based largely on ambient temp's to try and achieve that same desired operational viscosity. Today it is just one grade that's recommended, 0W-40, for all ambient temp's and all Porsche engines (like many manufacturers) have coolant/oil heat exchangers. This greatly stabilizes maximum oil temp's so that the affect of ambient temp's is mitigated to a large degree.



+1
 
Originally Posted By: virginoil
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
It's not about using a thicker or higher viscosity oil in the hot summer months (or in a hotter climate generally) and therefore more protection but rather attempting to maintain a certain minimum operational viscosity.


Ummmmmmmm...yeah

So the higher (bottle label) viscosity offers more protection in a hotter climate, by providing a more optimal operational viscosity...


Sounds like Australia's Penrite Oil +10 philosophy talking here.


If you've read any of my posts regarding penrite, and that there are no XW-50s anywhere near my shed, you'd know that it's not Penrite talk...
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Does Ford paint a redline of 8400 on the tach of any Mustang?
Don't think so.


They don't need to. The engine makes peak power a fair ways below that. What's the point of rev'ing it far beyond it's peak power point?

Quote:
The S2000 is capable of quite a bit more then fourteen second quarters. It just needs a driver who understands that the 9000 rpm redline is meant to be used and who knows how to shift.
Quarters in the thirteens are more typical with an experienced driver.


What have YOU run with an S2000? I've personally run 13's with a 1980's Fox body. Which stock, makes less power than an S2000 with truck heads and the aerodynamics of a tractor.

Quote:
Pretty impressive for a normally aspirated stock two liter with all the mod cons.


240HP running 14's/13's in an extremely light 2-seat roadster chassis is impressive? by that metric a stock 80's Fox running 13's was a freakin' marvel of technology then! LOL!

Quote:
Finally, if you want to compare apples to apples, the most potent stock Camaro will eat the most potent stock Mustang for lunch on any road course and spit out the seeds.


Because the Camaro's IRS suspension setup is superior to the Mustang's.

Quote:
This has been shown time and again in a number of comparison tests. You could Google it.


I could, but then I already know it because I do follow these sorts of things....

Quote:
The Mustang's Modular appears to be no match for pushrod Chevy power, although part of the reason is that the pushrod Chevy is so much more efficient in its use of space that it can be built to considerably larger displacement than can the OHC Ford while still fitting into something smaller than an Expedition.
More displacement and more power in a physically smaller package.
What's not to like, unless you're a Ford loyalist?


The Shelby 1000 (with a name that, unless you are severely hindered, leaves one with the understanding that it makes far more power than any stock Camaro) still doesn't go around a road course as fast as the Camaro does because its chassis just won't allow it. This has nothing to do with power output. Though obviously you are butt-hurt over my criticism of the S2K and feel that throwing this out at me is some how going to let you "get back at me" for the anguish I've caused you, right?
smirk.gif


Give it up, I'm not even sure what your point IS here? You aren't disagreeing with me on my point with respect to overall displacement and power density resulting in increased oil temperature, which WAS the theme of this thread. But sweet Lord Jesus [censored], I don't get the EXACT BHP figure for the S2000 right in a hypothetical comparison and you are all over me like stink on mule turds. If you've got a problem with me, let me know just what that problem IS. Otherwise, let it go. You don't own an S2000 as far as I know, so why you are defending it like I just slapped your mother?
21.gif


I've never said that the S2000 was a bad car. My point was always that no matter how you try and spin it, 240HP and 158lb-ft of torque are exactly that. And the net effect on oil temperature is going to be in-line with that.
 
I guess I've wound you up enough for today, Overkill.
It is entertaining, but enough for now.
Have a great evening and a good week!
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
OTOH, the stock Honda will stay together at well over 9000 revs, which can't be said of the Ford.


Hilarious. Maybe in the pushrod days at ford but you may want to have a look at the dohc engines and its red line.
My 04 Mach 4v is still pulling at 7500rpm,I've got a tuner and raised the rev limit. My tuner thinks 8000rpm is easily done with my new cams,so yeah rice has me by 1000rpm however my 12 second time slips would require that v-tec to have a turbo to even keep up.
Get with today's tech,your in the Stone Age with those comments
 
Originally Posted By: lockguy
Most owners manuals do not specify different weight oil depending on climate, i know i have not seen one.


Here's one for the 1UR-FE 4.6L Toyota gasoline engine:

ROWOilRecommendations2_05MAY15_edited-1_zpsc23a2384.jpg


49.gif
 
Originally Posted By: gaijinnv
Here's one for the 1UR-FE 4.6L Toyota gasoline engine:

That used to be pretty much the norm. The old Audi had a chart that was quite similar; in fact, the temperature limits for the thick stuff were much the same.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
This is better than Saturday night at the fights. Cheaper than pay per view too!
36.gif


+1. It ended too soon and I think we didn't get our money's worth.
21.gif



grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
The usual term is "specific output".
The two liter S2000 makes 240 bhp, not 200.


That's fantastic. It doesn't change the point of my post however. The engine also makes 153lb-ft of torque... at 7,500RPM. Which means it needs to be spun to the moon to get out of its own way. As is yet another caveat of using small displacement and high power density. If you don't have displacement, you need RPM.

This is why, despite having a lower power density, the Ford Roadrunner engine in the BOSS 302 (5.0L, 444HP) has the ability to heat the oil far more than the S2K does. And why it spec's 5w-50. Because in the end, it still has a 200HP advantage over the S2K, and that 200HP is working to heat the oil. It also makes 360lb-ft of torque at 4,500RPM, which means it can get out of its own way too
wink.gif



I can't comment on engines spinning faster (theoretically moving more air so maybe cooling a bit more), but the rest is sensible. Making a bad assumption that gas engines are roughly 33% efficient, a 250hp engine making full power will make about 500hp of waste thermal energy, while a 500hp engine will have 1000hp waste thermal.

Is the sump on the 500hp engine 2x as large? If not, something else must give, especially of lower-revving, so less air is pulling heat out overall.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: gaijinnv
Here's one for the 1UR-FE 4.6L Toyota gasoline engine:

That used to be pretty much the norm. The old Audi had a chart that was quite similar; in fact, the temperature limits for the thick stuff were much the same.


I'm used to seeing charts where 20 and even 30 weights are not recommended at higher ambient temperatures.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
This is better than Saturday night at the fights. Cheaper than pay per view too!
36.gif



Yep. It's turned into a Ford vs. Honda thread. I'll go with Ford on this one. LOL
 
Although clearly the ford is more modern and powerful, a used $13k dollar s2k will give any track pack mustang fits on a tight nit track.

Clearly the boss is a better car your comparing 1999 technology to 2012. Impressive for the s2000 to be in the debate, honestly.
 
I've passed lots of S2000's on track in my Camaro.
I've also passed lots of Mustangs.
So where's the overwhelming superiority of DOHC engines over those stinkin' antiquated pushrod units?
 
Thats because GM LS engines are not antiquated, they have proved that a purpose built pushrod V8 can be just as competitive as anything else, also very light when constructed of all aluminum and titanium parts.

The LS series of engines have always impressed me! I will own a C6 vette one day! For now my S2000 will have to do! I do love it, however it is no corvette! I've owned a few mustangs and the handling was far from impressive. I'm sure the new track pack cars are a vast improvement over the previous generations, however
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I've passed lots of S2000's on track in my Camaro.
I've also passed lots of Mustangs.
So where's the overwhelming superiority of DOHC engines over those stinkin' antiquated pushrod units?


Your Camaro has more than double the displacement of an S2000 and nothing like twice the weight, so I'd expect it to run faster.
Not sure why your Camaro trounces the Mustangs, but that seems to be typical in track contests between the two.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I've passed lots of S2000's on track in my Camaro.
I've also passed lots of Mustangs.
So where's the overwhelming superiority of DOHC engines over those stinkin' antiquated pushrod units?


Your Camaro has more than double the displacement of an S2000 and nothing like twice the weight, so I'd expect it to run faster.
Not sure why your Camaro trounces the Mustangs, but that seems to be typical in track contests between the two.


The S197-based cars handle decently for a live-axle car. However the Fox (and SN95, which is just a modified fox platform) were not superb handlers stock by any stretch of the imagination. Their forte was drag racing.

That's not to say that the platform can't be improved and made competitive. Steeda, Maximum Motorsport, Griggs....etc All make complete suspension kits for the Fox cars to make them handle extremely well. But I don't think we are including heavily modified cars in this discussion, so I realize that this is a somewhat irrelevant, albeit interesting piece of information, lol!

The new Camaro is a formidable force (albeit horrifically ugly) on the road course. It is a faster car than the current-gen SRA Mustang.

However

A current-gen Mustang would absolutely destroy a stock 4th gen F-body like A_Harman's on a road course, so if he's passing Mustangs, they aren't the current offerings, that's for sure. But back in the day a 2002 Z28 was a good race with a 03/04 Terminator around a road course from what I recall. And the F-body was certainly faster than a GT.
 
Originally Posted By: S65AMG
I'm used to seeing charts where 20 and even 30 weights are not recommended at higher ambient temperatures.

That, too, though that wasn't as common with North American vehicles, at least with respect to, say, Chevs and the 30 grades. The Audi's manual did have warnings about watching oil level when using thinner grades. It also did note that there was no cause for alarm when using a thinner grade when the temperature warmed up - an immediate oil change was not necessary.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Trav
This is better than Saturday night at the fights. Cheaper than pay per view too!
36.gif



Yep. It's turned into a Ford vs. Honda thread. I'll go with Ford on this one. LOL


now ford vs Honda vs chevy...not sure how this happened but I got what I needed out of the thread so....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom