Who runs a 20wt here?

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
UOAs are not a tool for measuring engine wear, as has been well covered in numerous threads here.
The limitations in particle sizes measured make this so.
UOAs are an appropriate tool for determining oil condition and suitability for continued service.


If you have an established trend and notice an up-tick in metals that can be a good indicator. I'm well aware that the spectrum isn't the complete picture but it's the only thing we have short of disassembling an engine and taking absolute measurements.

What we can speculate is that 20wt's are perfectly fine where called for in most situations and that there is no real-world benefit running a thicker oil even out well past the junk points of most vehicles or we would have this proof in the form of early death engines right after junk points and we don't see that. Even from the high mileage engines well beyond 200K miles here that have run 20wt's their whole life.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by ChrisD46
How would you reply to the statement : "As long as HTHS is 3.0 or above - I feel my engine is protected" ?


As a blanket answer to a blanket statement, as opposed to 2.6 or lower, you are technically correct but the other variables of a car's life play a larger role. Same as all variables presented to the avg driver comparing a 2.6 vs 3.0 and claiming better fe with the 2.6. Yes, technically correct but the same argument regarding external variables play a larger role between these two HTHS.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC


I agree. However you would think a UOA with a 20wt would yeild higher PPM than those for 30wt's if this were the case


But that's relying on using UOA's for something they were not intended to do. Somebody could be running Redline and get a far worse "looking" UOA than you whilst achieving better wear performance just as an example, but you wouldn't know that to be the case unless you tore down the two engines.

When Doug Hillary tracked his UOA's doing his outback Delvac 1 test, and you recall the condemnation limits that he was using, do you think the the bearings would have been "like newer'er" at a million Km's had he run an oil with lower wear metals in the UOA's? How about the liners that also measured "like new", would they be "newer'er" on something else after that interval that presented better on the UOA? Or perhaps the reason he was doing the tear-downs is because the UOA wasn't a valid metric for determining wear and thus physical inspection and measurement was required

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC


I agree. However you would think a UOA with a 20wt would yeild higher PPM than those for 30wt's if this were the case


But that's relying on using UOA's for something they were not intended to do. Somebody could be running Redline and get a far worse "looking" UOA than you whilst achieving better wear performance just as an example, but you wouldn't know that to be the case unless you tore down the two engines.

When Doug Hillary tracked his UOA's doing his outback Delvac 1 test, and you recall the condemnation limits that he was using, do you think the the bearings would have been "like newer'er" at a million Km's had he run an oil with lower wear metals in the UOA's? How about the liners that also measured "like new", would they be "newer'er" on something else after that interval that presented better on the UOA? Or perhaps the reason he was doing the tear-downs is because the UOA wasn't a valid metric for determining wear and thus physical inspection and measurement was required

If you have an established trend and notice an up-tick in metals that can be a good indicator. I'm well aware that the spectrum isn't the complete picture but it's the only thing we have short of disassembling an engine and taking absolute measurements.

What we can speculate is that 20wt's are perfectly fine where called for in most situations and that there is no real-world benefit running a thicker oil even out well past the junk points of most vehicles or we would have this proof in the form of early death engines right after junk points and we don't see that. Even from the high mileage engines well beyond 200K miles here that have run 20wt's their whole life.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
If you have an established trend and notice an up-tick in metals that can be a good indicator.


Indicator that you have a potential problem, yes. That's within the scope of the tool's purpose. That oil A is more awesome than oil B, not so much. And we are talking significant deviation, not a couple PPM.

Originally Posted by StevieC
I'm well aware that the spectrum isn't the complete picture but it's the only thing we have short of disassembling an engine and taking absolute measurements.

I've posted about the desire for folks to use UOA's in this manner due to the thought process you've just described. Just like you CAN use a hammer to drive a screw; just because you can use a tool for something outside its intended purpose, doesn't mean that the results are going to be good.

If you want to hunt deer but the only thing you have is an RPG, you probably shouldn't be hunting deer.

Originally Posted by StevieC
What we can speculate is that 20wt's are perfectly fine where called for in most situations and that there is no real-world benefit running a thicker oil even out well past the junk points of most vehicles or we would have this proof in the form of early death engines right after junk points and we don't see that. Even from the high mileage engines well beyond 200K miles here that have run 20wt's their whole life.

I wouldn't even say speculate. We know for a fact that in engines that call for an xW-20 that the lubricant will be suitable for providing sufficient engine life beyond the intended operating life of the vehicle. That it's a trade-off is of no concern to your typical operator who will never see the mileage where that becomes relevant.

And this is in-line with the data from the Honda paper Shannow has posted. You sacrifice some wear for the sake of fuel economy, but this will be transparent to the end user.

 

[PimTac]

And this is in-line with the data from the Honda paper Shannow has posted. You sacrifice some wear for the sake of fuel economy, but this will be transparent to the end user.



This is always mentioned but has anyone calculated a percentage of increased wear from using a 20wt ? 5%? 10%?

I would think such a number would be hard to estimate with so many variables to account for.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Indicator that you have a potential problem, yes. That's within the scope of the tool's purpose. That oil A is more awesome than oil B, not so much. And we are talking significant deviation, not a couple PPM.


If you use a 30wt and the ppm is say 4 to pick a number and then you go to say 30 ppm on a 20wt then I would totally agree the 30wt is better. Now if the spread between the numbers is a few PPM I would agree this means there is no difference. Again only in the spectrum we can see on a UOA and not having the ability to dissemble an engine to take exact measurements between oil weight trials.

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I've posted about the desire for folks to use UOA's in this manner due to the thought process you've just described. Just like you CAN use a hammer to drive a screw; just because you can use a tool for something outside its intended purpose, doesn't mean that the results are going to be good.

If you want to hunt deer but the only thing you have is an RPG, you probably shouldn't be hunting deer.


This is not what I meant, re-read what I said.

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
I wouldn't even say speculate. We know for a fact that in engines that call for an xW-20 that the lubricant will be suitable for providing sufficient engine life beyond the intended operating life of the vehicle. That it's a trade-off is of no concern to your typical operator who will never see the mileage where that becomes relevant.

And this is in-line with the data from the Honda paper Shannow has posted. You sacrifice some wear for the sake of fuel economy, but this will be transparent to the end user.


When does it become relevant even folks driving engines well past 200K miles on 20wt's. Should we then be saying well if you want your engine to last a million miles then 30wt's are better? That is a really small proportion of the population doing such things and to run around BITOG instilling fear (not aimed at you) that the engine isn't going to last long on a 20wt's as they would on a 30wt is ridiculous if we are talking about say 1,000,000 miles out which is 5x times the typical life of the average engine. Furthermore I said that we would see early deaths past the junk points of 200K miles if it were a problem and 20wt's were only offering "Adequate" protection with "trade off in wear/tear" instead of what we actually see which is long engine life well past 200K miles.

All I'm getting at is things need to be in perspective instead of trying to instill fear into everyone that doesn't use a 30wt or higher when it's completely moot for 99% of the population, even here on BITOG where there is a large population of folks running past 200K miles. All based on papers from OE's etc. which are the "But look here, But look here" that mean nothing for the majority of the population.

 

[JAG]

No, you would not know whether oil viscosity choice gave, for example, 2%, 5%, 10%, or 15% less or more total wear (true wear...not UOA wear metals) on any or every wearing part of an engine. You don't have the two scenarios to compare to each other. Using what you've heard of how long other engines using whatever oils to determine effect of oil viscosity choice on engine life is extremely crude. That would help make the determination for only very large differences in engine life. On the low end of detectability of difference caused by viscosity choice, I'd say it is no less than 25% difference in wear rate. All of the other factors on engine life have strong combined effects that will tend to obscure the effects of oil viscosity.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by PimTac
And this is in-line with the data from the Honda paper Shannow has posted. You sacrifice some wear for the sake of fuel economy, but this will be transparent to the end user.



This is always mentioned but has anyone calculated a percentage of increased wear from using a 20wt ? 5%? 10%?

I would think such a number would be hard to estimate with so many variables to account for.


It won't be a fixed figure, as it depends on bearing design, operating temperature....etc. And wear isn't universal, you'll only see an uptick in certain areas. Shannow has delved into this in detail in the past.

Edit, I see JAG took the effort to cover it in more detail. What he said.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted by PimTac
And this is in-line with the data from the Honda paper Shannow has posted. You sacrifice some wear for the sake of fuel economy, but this will be transparent to the end user.

This is always mentioned but has anyone calculated a percentage of increased wear from using a 20wt ? 5%? 10%?

I would think such a number would be hard to estimate with so many variables to account for.

So many papers state what the measured differences were. That is what some here don't not spend enough time reading.

 

[StevieC]

It doesn't matter what the measured differences are because those amount to no change in actual engine longevity unless you intend to operate the vehicle well past 200K miles to say 1 million miles so to change to a 30wt based on this paper over a 20wt spec'ed oil when most likely the engine will be in the junk yard well before the crazy mileage is ridiculous. 99% of the population and the vast majority here on BITOG will never realize these benefits so why stress over it and go to great lengths to read world wide owners manuals to see what they call for in non CAFE regulated type countries?

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by JAG
Originally Posted by PimTac
And this is in-line with the data from the Honda paper Shannow has posted. You sacrifice some wear for the sake of fuel economy, but this will be transparent to the end user.

This is always mentioned but has anyone calculated a percentage of increased wear from using a 20wt ? 5%? 10%?

I would think such a number would be hard to estimate with so many variables to account for.

So many papers state what the measured differences were. That is what some here don't not spend enough time reading.



Well pardon me.

 

[Rat407]

Originally Posted by StevieC
It doesn't matter what the measured differences are because those amount to no change in actual engine longevity unless you intend to operate the vehicle well past 200K miles to say 1 million miles so to change to a 30wt based on this paper over a 20wt spec'ed oil when most likely the engine will be in the junk yard well before the crazy mileage is ridiculous. 99% of the population and the vast majority here on BITOG will never realize these benefits so why stress over it and go to great lengths to read world wide owners manuals to see what they call for in non CAFE regulated type countries?


Exactly!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
If you use a 30wt and the ppm is say 4 to pick a number and then you go to say 30 ppm on a 20wt then I would totally agree the 30wt is better. Now if the spread between the numbers is a few PPM I would agree this means there is no difference. Again only in the spectrum we can see on a UOA and not having the ability to dissemble an engine to take exact measurements between oil weight trials.


But that won't be how it will play out, so while I see the purpose of your hypothetical here, that's not how it works. Look at Dirty_Howie's Redline 5w30 vs Mobil 1 0w-40 thread in his Corvette as to an example of two oils almost the same viscosity that resulted in massively different levels of wear metals in the exact same engine under the same usage profile. Note that the takeaway from that thread shouldn't be that Redline is bad, simply that whatever was in it that was causing elevated lead seemed to have been mitigated by going with a different lubricant.

Originally Posted by StevieC
This is not what I meant, re-read what I said.


But it is, because you just tried to use it for that purpose again in your example above

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. UOA's used for their intended purpose on this site would significantly reduce the amount of discourse they presently manufacture.

"Nothing unusual" should be the primary takeaway from the vast majority of the UOA's posted on this board, and perhaps some remarks about fuel dilution, as that's been noted frequently. That the lubricant is suitable for continued use would be another. But we both know that's not what goes on and "hey look I have super low wear metals" or "you should switch to Pennzoil" or "you should switch to AMSOIL" because "my completely unrelated vehicle with an entirely different wear signature had different results on it so my UOA is awesome, yours is garbage and your engine is self-destructing" tends to be the direction that much of this goes.

Nobody wants to be the guy with "high" wear metals, even if they are perfectly normal for the equipment being discussed. At the same time, the guy with the low numbers is probably grinning ear-to-ear thinking just how awesome his equipment and lubricant choice are.


Originally Posted by StevieC
When does it become relevant even folks driving engines well past 200K miles on 20wt's. Should we then be saying well if you want your engine to last a million miles then 30wt's are better? That is a really small proportion of the population doing such things and to run around BITOG instilling fear (not aimed at you) that the engine isn't going to last long on a 20wt's as they would on a 30wt is ridiculous if we are talking about say 1,000,000 miles out which is 5x times the typical life of the average engine. Furthermore I said that we would see early deaths past the junk points of 200K miles if it were a problem and 20wt's were only offering "Adequate" protection with "trade off in wear/tear" instead of what we actually see which is long engine life well past 200K miles.

All I'm getting at is things need to be in perspective instead of trying to instill fear into everyone that doesn't use a 30wt or higher when it's completely moot for 99% of the population, even here on BITOG.


This is an honest technical discussion so fear or irrational fear mongering and strawmen (pile of failed engines) should have no place in it. Sure, maybe it's a million miles for a Modular Ford, maybe it's 200,000 miles for a Toyota 4-cylinder. It's going to vary wildly based on engine design, a roller engine is going to be more tolerant of lower viscosity in the valvetrain than cam-over-bucket would be a generalization that could be tossed in here, but there's a myriad of other factors so we can't just slap a mileage figure on it and put it out there as a rule of thumb.

There's not going to be an "answer" here, because what's being discussed can't be so clearly divided. It's highly variable and while we can use math to dissect those variables, we cannot control for the massive number of input conditions that will also have an effect. The stated "yes, there's more wear, but the typical end user is likely never going to see the result of it", while wholly unsatisfactory for some, is what those not interested in the nuance of the science and engineering should take away from this.

 

[StevieC]

So then how can we say that higher weights than 20wt's are better as a blanket statement when there are too many variables involved and not every engine or variable was tested in those papers?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
So then how can we say that higher weights than 20wt's are better as a blanket statement when there are too many variables involved and not every engine or variable was tested in those papers?

We know the areas where increased viscosity provides lower wear. What the value is? That will depend on other factors. We can know that increased viscosity will lower wear as a fact while acknowledging by how much will be variable depending on engine design, operating conditions...etc.

This is where the stuff JAG (and others) has brought to the table fits in. If you want to put a bow on it and call it done, then that nuance doesn't matter because at that point one is interested in a conclusion rather than the science that breaks down the various operating conditions and components and how viscosity, additive levels...etc effect each of them. On top of that are the compromises and mitigation mechanisms employed to reduce impact, like using more moly to counteract the increased operation in mixed and boundary when there's less viscosity as any example.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by StevieC
So then how can we say that higher weights than 20wt's are better as a blanket statement when there are too many variables involved and not every engine or variable was tested in those papers?

Correct there. Cold starts, a thinner oil always wins the wear-wars. Some studies are done on taxis which see few cold starts and a ton of hot miles.

1. Cold starts: use a thinner oil for better wear, as tech papers have proven, even though some ignore those actual engineering studies & tests.....

2. Warm-up time: About a tie for wear performance, since there is much more hydrodynamic (greater % difference) inside the engine for a thicker oil compared to running hot.....:

3. Engine hot: Might be a tie, since the thinner oil is engineered for better boundary metal-to-metal performance even though it has a slightly higher % of surfaces under boundary than a thick oil does. When engine is hot it could favor the thicker oil for wear though.

 

[StevieC]

As a scientific discussion it's fine but it should be prefaced with how it affects the majority of drivers because there are varying levels of folks that read here and the way that Shannow is going about it makes it appear that using anything but the thicker weights is going to have terrible consequences when this just isn't the case, again for 99% of folks and even those high mileage folks here on BITOG. This just leads to the same style of argument that was here over a decade ago regarding using 20w50 instead of 30wt's because thicker is better and now it's 30's or 40's versus 20's.

Just instills fear that isn't warranted. But again as a scientific discussion it's fine. It's not being presented this way. It's being presented as a "Use a 30wt" or else bad things will happen.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by JAG
Originally Posted by PimTac
And this is in-line with the data from the Honda paper Shannow has posted. You sacrifice some wear for the sake of fuel economy, but this will be transparent to the end user.

This is always mentioned but has anyone calculated a percentage of increased wear from using a 20wt ? 5%? 10%?

I would think such a number would be hard to estimate with so many variables to account for.

So many papers state what the measured differences were. That is what some here don't not spend enough time reading.


Well pardon me.

That wasn't meant to be an insult. It was likely too blunt but was meant to be a statement of what I consider to be a fact and also recommendation for what some pole people should read more of. So much time is spent reading replies in threads like this, with little to gain from it.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted by StevieC
As a scientific discussion it's fine but it should be prefaced with how it affects the majority of drivers because there are varying levels of folks that read here and the way that Shannow is going about it makes it appear that using anything but the thicker weights is going to have terrible consequences when this just isn't the case, again for 99% of folks and even those high mileage folks here on BITOG. This just leads to the same style of argument that was here over a decade ago regarding using 20w50 instead of 30wt's because thicker is better and now it's 30's or 40's versus 20's.

Just instills fear that isn't warranted. But again as a scientific discussion it's fine. It's not being presented this way. It's being presented as a "Use a 30wt" or else bad things will happen.

Thank you! +1

I see a lot of people referring to x - 20 as "water oil" or something to that effect. I just laugh. it reminds me of my younger years when people said oils like 10W-30 or 10W-40 were "water" and you needed a straight 30 or 40 wt if your engine was going to last.