Viscosity Has No Effect on Wear?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nick, to directly answer your question...I don't believe viscosity is directly related to wear, but I believe it's darn close, though.

quote:

Originally posted by XS650:
Do you mean to tell me that the engineers don't make the final decisions where technical matters count???

Caution: long post...
smile.gif

offtopic.gif

I agree with you 100%. Taking engineering to a different point of view....My last job required me to "tow the corporate line" on network router and connetivity installation for a new office that was quite large. When I saw their plans, I told them in no uncertain terms that their plan was flawed and that network connectivity to the new office complex would not work. Corporate said "we tested it". I said "just like you tested the OTHER new office we had here?" An extra 100 hours in two weeks for each member of our team because they "tested" it at Corporate.

My last day with that company was the day before (!) the move. I didn't hold back to tell them that "...you're plan is f****** up...it will fail like the Zepplin". So, they sent out the most Jr. member of the network team to setup everything. (remember, it's important to hinge an entire money making project on the least qualified member of your team!)

Needless to say, two weeks later, I received a phone call late on a Friday night asking for assistance since the "network hasn't worked at all since you left". I wasn't sure if I should feel good or feel bad. Poor customers---held at bay because of management gridlock. NASA or any other beareaucratic organization suffers from this lack of internal politics. As a result, the public that uses their products suffer as well.

CAFE is the 800 pound gorilla. Like the U.N. it exists only for the sake of itself. CAFE is the excuse car makers give to do things. CAFE is the sole reason we're being beaten over the head in our owners's manuals to use water-thin oil. Water-thin oil is great for racing cars that only need to last 1000 miles, but that's where I draw the line.

Like computer software, (consumer car) engines have planned obsolecense built-in. That's what I "heard" when I read that Ford mentioned that 150K life-cycle intervals should be easily attiainable with 20w oils. 150K? That's it? I'm looking for 300-400K if I'm spending today's incredible amount of $$ for a new car or truck! Planned obsolecense. That's how they make the money. CAFE is just another tool to make it happen.

I'm not against using 20w oils in average to high-revving engines---the UOA's prove that it works for these typs of situations. But what if that oil becomes fuel-diluted? What would be the HTHS value at that point if the oil starts out at 2.61 to begin with and the consumer doesn't change the oil immediately because "the manual said I could go 7500 miles between changes"??

Moreover, should I use 10w30 in my Saturn just because it says so? The manual says to never use any other oil outside of 5w30 / 10w30. Nor should I "...never add anything to the oil..." Geez. I guess Saturn corporate has never heard of all the oil consumption issues over the lifespan of the S-series? No, they're fully aware of how much oil many Saturns have consumed over the years...it's CAFE. 15w40 /15w-50 oils work perfectly in this engine! So much for the owner's manual! I wonder how much crow management would have to eat if they started recommending 15w40 type oils for these cars. That would fly in the face of CAFE. That can't happen because all the small cars offset the avg MPG ratings for all the larger cars/trucks to meet the CAFE minimum.

I wonder how much life is left in the 88 Honda that the BITOG member recently posted photos for? Yes, these engines easily go 300-400K, but how long will they go when when using quality thicker oils? 1000K? 1200K?

Irony is, I'll be using M1 in a Saturn suggested oil grade in about a month to see if MPG does goes up. But I'll be breaking the no-additive rule by adding Auto-Rx.
smile.gif
If I don't see any real gain in MPG, it's back to thicker oils.

Thanks for listening...er...reading.
 
I find it entertainig to watch how tightly some folks cling to any shred of evidence that one viscosity is superior to another regardless of real life examples.

I honestly don't care one way or another which viscosity is superior on paper. What I do care that it does the job in what I am using it in.

That being said, I use a 5w20 in one product with excellent results, and I'm working on a 5w40 to improve results in another. Thick or thin, it doesn't matter - the end results do.

From that standpoint, I think its fair to say that their isn't a coverall statement that can be made on viscosity.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MNgopher:
From that standpoint, I think its fair to say that their isn't a coverall statement that can be made on viscosity.

I suspect that is pretty much the thick and the thin of it.
wink.gif
 
quote:

I honestly don't care one way or another which viscosity is superior on paper. What I do care that it does the job in what I am using it in.

I don't know which car companies approve oil viscosities for their motors based on data printed on paper. I do know that, for example, an oil that meets VW 502 (more stringent than A3) has to endure and pass a high temperature high load test that lasts for 248 hours. Makeup oil is not allowed. Oils with an HTHS of <3.5 are not even suitable candidates...
 
quote:

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
WHy aren't any commercial diesel engine manufactures or European engine manufactures jumping on this?

Good question. Fuel economy vs durability should be important to these guys.

Low revving, high torque engines might be the reason for diesels, but for the euros where fuel in $1/liter? Makes you wonder.

[ February 04, 2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: satterfi ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by Dr. T:

quote:

Originally posted by TallPaul:
Originally posted by ToyotaNSaturn:
[qb]...it seems that though you may not get excess wear with a thinner oil, you might get excess deposits in your engine. When that oil volitizes from a lower flash point, it invariably leaves residue behind.
This is the point I've been trying to get across too. What happens to all that consumption that only us folks in N.A. consider normal (1qt/1k mi)?
1qt/1K miles isn't normal to me, it's worn out. Or possibly poorly designed and/or assembled.

I've seen oil temps rise 15-20 degrees in air cooled engines simply by going to a 20W-50 from a 10W-40. Not a good thing in my mind.

Thicker is better is just as invalid as the converse. There is an optimum for each engine and conditions...
 
quote:

Originally posted by heyjay:
Oh, I have personally witnessed engineers come under a great deal of stress since they had to toe the corporate line. Most can't do what's "right" as they have to listen to Joe Blow the Beancounter in Accounting. No offense to those in the accounting field.

As a utility engineer, in a "competetive market", I can do sweet FA about keeping my plant in good order.

Of course, when it breaks, you know who gets kicked.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Shannow:

quote:

Originally posted by heyjay:
Oh, I have personally witnessed engineers come under a great deal of stress since they had to toe the corporate line. Most can't do what's "right" as they have to listen to Joe Blow the Beancounter in Accounting. No offense to those in the accounting field.

As a utility engineer, in a "competetive market", I can do sweet FA about keeping my plant in good order.

Of course, when it breaks, you know who gets kicked.


Oh, you mean like when they tell you to cut back the greasing interval for a certain brand of extremely large centrifugal multi-stage blower with a monster 400 HP three-phase electric motor?

And you notice the end bearings vibration analyser and temperature recorders take alarming trending upwards, and you STILL are not allowed to do sweet FA about it?

And then when one of the bearings happens to seize and the centrifugal blower, running at 3,600 RPM, happens to have a, shall we say, "slight" alignment issue?

And those centrifugal blades happen to contact the outer housing in a spectacular demonstration of the laws of physics??

And despite your warnings, it's STILL your fault?!?!

Didn't happen to me, happened to a friend of mine. Fortunately, he saved all the email correspondence with his manager, so in the end they blamed the manager.

This is much like the sad Alaska Airlines MD-80 that crashed about 3-4 years ago off the coast of San Diego, California:

Alaska Airlines thought they were saving just armfulls of money by extending the rear elevator jackscrew lubrication interval by 3-4x that recommended by Boeing. It's so gosh-darn inconvenient to apply sticky grease to threads.

The jackscrew threads ran dry and completely stripped. The jackscrew trim motor actuator attempted to move the elevator for trim and the threads came right off, so the elevator pitched full down.

The crew never had a chance.

They managed to send a Mayday and other commercial flights witnessed their plunge from 12,000 feet to impact with the ocean.

All for a dollap of sticky grease.

Jerry
 
nick778, the only observation I can add to your original question is that many uoa show increases in viscosity the longer an oil is in use, but yet also tend to show slighly lower wear rates with older oil. Thicker oils may create thicker elastohydrodynamic (EHD) films, but it appears that something besides just viscosity is at work controlling wear.
 
Could some of the wear metals plate out as
varnish, as the oil gets old and loses it's detergency? Then the new oil washes it all off again, raising the readings?
 
Okay, short and sweet.

In vehicles calling for a 5w-20, such as certain Fords and Hondas, it has been proven in the form of UOA's that this oil can do the job just as well, if not better, than a 5w30 or 10w30.

In engines that DO NOT call for a 5w-20, DO NOT USE IT!

This is very simple - engines are all manufactured to different tolerences. A modular Ford engine can use a 5w-20 without incident. A Toyota pick-up engine may be able to use a 5w-20 without incident, but will show more wear and will probably wear out before it hits 500k miles.

So, yes, in certain engines - viscosity DOES matter when we look at wear rates. In other engines, it doesn't matter.
 
quote:

Originally posted by medic:


This is very simple - engines are all manufactured to different tolerences.


2002 Toyota Corolla 1.8L four cylinder:
Connecting rod bearing clearance: .0011 to .0024"
Main Bearing clearance: .0006 to .0013"
Piston/Bore clearance: .0026 to .0035"

1974 Buick 350 cubic inch V8:
Connecting rod bearing clearance: .0002 to .0023"
Main Bearing clearance: .0004 to .0015"
Piston/Bore clearance: .0008 to .0020"

I don't have the Ford Modular engine specs at hand, but off the top of my head similar to above.
 
quote:

Originally posted by sprintman:
1qt/1k mile is normal?? That sure wouldn't be acceptable here unless of course you own a GM LS1 oil guzzler.

that is what the dealer will tell you if your GM engine is consuming to much oil
thumbsdown.gif


I guess that article shows that viscosity is not as big a deal as some of us would think but you do have to pick a viscosity and there are effects of that choice so you might as well put some thought into it

I agree that manufacturer recommendations are based more on CAFE than need, someone on this board compared tolerances specs on old and new engines they have barely changed in 30 years. Engine control may have changed a lot but the internals of my push rod big block that the oil see's are the same parts in the same configuration as motors of the 60's

the fact that these manufacturers sell identical engines in other countries and recommend a much wider range of viscosities seals it for me. America is a very large country with diverse operating temps (-30f to +120f) from wide open country to stop and go city, there are few driving conditions in the would that cannot be matched here, I do not think a single viscosity can be the best for all, it may work but it is not optimum

I would use older American or current over sea's viscosity charts on any new engine adjusting up or down for preference and type of use


for me I think that the GM blanket recommendation of 5w30 on their whole fleet is on the thin side for a big block in GA heat,

my last UOA (mostly run in cooler fall/early winter) had a drop off in the bearing wear I had seen this summer, as usual that was not the only change so it is hard to pin point but I would not be surprised if temperatures more suiting the viscosity had something to do with it, unfortunately I will not be testing the current GC, as most of the sump has been replaced due to extreme consumption on this thin oil, the results would be useless

Today I bought 2 5qt jugs of M1 15w50 for the next change, this is probably thicker than optimum for this truck in the winter (cold starts sometimes as low as 25F
shocked.gif
) but I want to see if it will help with engine noise and consumption, as a teenager/young adult I ran 20w50 dino (per Nissan's 1981 viscosity chart for my 280zx) in only slightly warmer winters (FL),

[ February 04, 2004, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: RavenTai ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by RavenTai:

quote:

Originally posted by sprintman:
1qt/1k mile is normal?? That sure wouldn't be acceptable here unless of course you own a GM LS1 oil guzzler.

that is what the dealer will tell you if your GM engine is consuming to much oil
thumbsdown.gif



Good point.

What I find interesting is that the same companies that have many on this board believeing xW-20 weight oil is a good thing are the same companies that tell us an engine on warranty that burns 1 qt per 1000 miles is OK. Do the same people believe them when they say that?

Might it be that our long term best interests aren't the car company's primary motivator?

The appologies for xW-20 oil saying that a high quality 0W-20 oil may be as good as a run of the millxW-30 oil for long term wear have some validity. However, 0W-20 oils move you closer to the ragged edge than necessary.

All you need is some bean counter at an oil company to decide to add 1 cent to profit on a quart of 0W-20 oil by cutting corners a bit, and you suddenly have a run of the mill 0W-20 oil.

When driving down the road, good drivers don't drive all the way to one side of their lane. They stay toward the middle where there is more room for error without serious consequences.

Sometimes it's a good idea to aim for the middle of the acceptable operating range, particulaly when the potential gains from operating on the edge are so small they are difficult to measure.
 
Well, I put this in a different post, but here goes:

I purchased new an expensive 1990 Toyota 4Runner SR5 with the 3.0 V6. Also the shop manuals, which caused some concern for the sales jerk who sold me the 4Runner.

Although the manual had a vague generalization of 10w30, the shop manual had a nice graph with almost 10 different SAE viscosity grades, depending on ambient: 5w30, 10w30, 10W-40, 15w40, 20W-50, 15W-50, etc.

The shop manual in no uncertain terms said to NOT use 5w30 in ambient temps higher than 60 F. If I knew how important this topic would have been, I would have kept the Toyota shop manuals when I sold it in 2000.

I ran Mobil Delvac 1 5W-40 year round, since at the time Delvac 1 had great cold temp performance and good high temp protection. When I moved to Utah in 1993, I switched to Mobil 1 15W-50, since it was easier to find and a lot cheaper.

Running 15W-50, the motor was quieter. Not a huge difference, just something I noticed. No difference in fuel economy.

I did try Mobil 1 5w30 for a short oil change interval in ambient temps of 75-105 F. Much noiser motor, no difference in fuel economy, except for 1 and ONLY 1 tank of gas: 0.25 MPG difference. With all the valvetrain noise, I ended the experiment and went back to 15W-50.

I use very thin oils in winter since it can and does dip to -42 where I live. I happily trade "somewhat" increased wear at operating temp for no failure on starting. So I use Mobil 1 0w30 in winter in my 2000 GMC Sierra with the infamous Vortec 5.3 - based on the LS1.

When the ambient temps climb over +50 F / 10 C, I notice a lot of valvetrain noise at normal operating temp running Mobil 1 0W-30. When I change to Mobil 1 10w30, the noise is substantially reduced.

The more I research this topic, the better I feel about trying either Delvac 1 5W-40 or Mobil 1 Truck and SUV 5W-40 in about two months. Based on my experience with the 4Runner, I'll expect no difference in fuel economy and a quieter motor.

I don't believe in "disposable" cars and was taught to keep mine a long time. I might change every 10 years or so. So I expect to put on +300,000km / +180,000mi during that time.

Remember that CAFE is "Corporate AVERAGE Fuel Economy" and a minute fraction of a MPG is applied over hundreds of thousands of cars to earn "credits." These credits are applied to vehicles with lower MPG to offset fines.

If you follow the recommendations for CAFE oils and long OCI's, you'll make it past the warranty. Beyond that, you're on your own.

Oh, I have personally witnessed engineers come under a great deal of stress since they had to toe the corporate line. Most can't do what's "right" as they have to listen to Joe Blow the Beancounter in Accounting. No offense to those in the accounting field.

I tried the consulting field, telecomms and embedded systems, for awhile and got out of it after 6 years. The amount of corporate bulls*** politics is amazing, it's almost impossible to do what you KNOW is right.

Everything is pennies here and pennies there. If it doesn't work, what the h***, it's a write-off. When I was "threatened" with a promotion to life-critical systems (Systems that could directly impact human life and/or cause injury if abended)I quit on the spot.

Some folks can happily sleep at night even if they do wrong all the time, I'm not one of those folks. I suspect most powertrain engineers face the same dilemma in North America, but in the rest of the world, they'll tell you to run a 15w40 or 15W-50.

Jerry
 
Viscosity is the most important fundamental property of ANY lubricant, whether you are talking about engine oils, ATF, gear lube, grease, compressor oils, hydraulic fluids, etc.

You need the correct balance of wear protection, high/low temp flow properties, cooling, sealing, oil consumption, etc. Viscosity selection is always a careful balancing act ....

There is NO one viscosity that is perfect for all applications. There is an OPTIMUM viscosity for each and every application, which may vary significantly even for the same engine; depending on operating conditions, loads and how worn the motor is ....

Tooslick
www.lubedealer.com/Dixie_Synthetics
 
If you subsribe to the theory "most engine wear happens at startup," then perhaps viscosity has a lot to do with wear.

I am amazed how fast the oil light goes out on our Honda Element on a 0°F morning.

On this vehicle I use M1 0W20 and a Honda filter featuring a silicone ADBV.

I would not consider putting a thicker oil in it.
 
I still subscribe to the theory of matching a viscosity to the ambient temperature. For a Honda minivan, Mobil 1 0W-20 has somewhat better cold pumping characteristics than Mobil 1 0W-30: either oil flows rapidly even at -40.

I live in a climate where the temps can range from -42 C to +35 C. There are very few oils indeed that could perform reliably year-round in this climate.

Around 24 years ago, I was one of the first in my area to start using Esso XD-3 0w30 Arctic in winter. At the time, folks thought my motors would blow up, though they were usually the ones with blown motors at -42.

Instead, a lot of folks noticed how much easier my equipment started at -42, so they also started using lighter oils. At those temps, a very light viscosity dramatically reduces engine wear, especially at start-up.

I don't always badmouth light oils and I don't think they're evil in any way. For example, I swear by Mobil 1 0w30 for winter starting performance in my 2000 GMC Sierra with Vortec 5.3 V8. Especially in city stop-n-go at -40, that oil would probably save the motor.

In that same motor, if I try to use Mobil 1 0w30 in ambient temps greater than +10 C, especially if I tow heavy loads, the valvetrain makes a LOT of noise: tickticktickticktickticktick. I would associate that noise with extra wear, or should I just ignore the noise and use 0w30 year-round?

Even though there is a minor difference in HTHS viscosity between M1 0w30 and M1 10w30 (2.99 mPa s vs 3.17 mPa s), it appears to be enough of a difference to remediate most of my valvetrain noise. I'm curious what the effect will be when I put in Delvac 1 5W-40 this April.

What I find interesting is the effect on oil consumption: the LS1 motor and its truck derivative, the Vortec, appear to have an oil consumption issue running the "recommended" grade.

When a TSB is issued that suggests 1 quart every 1,000 miles or so is "normal" you know something is very wrong.

Running Mobil 1 0w30 I average about 1 quart every 4,400 miles (1 litre every 7,081 km). Running Mobil 1 10w30 I average about 1 quart every 6,800 miles (1 litre every 10,943 km). I consider this to be somewhat poor oil control.

In winter, I don't tow and rarely haul heavy loads while running the 0W-30. In summer, I routinely carry heavy loads, and routinely tow 7,200-9,000 lbs (3,265 - 4,082 kg).

Given those operating conditions, I would expect my summer oil consumption to be GREATER than my winter oil consumption, but in fact it's much less. If this isn't related to the oil viscosity, what's going on??

Some folks may be fine running a xW-20 year round with no noise or troublesome wear indicators. Other folks may experience enough noise, wear, or oil consumption to want to try a heavier viscosity. Use common sense.

Jerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom