Who runs a 20wt here?

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by 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.




I understand and I reacted a bit too strong. This board does have a plethora of knowledge on it but searching becomes a waste of energy trying to find certain things.


I do appreciate the technical expertise here. Even as a non engineer/mechanical person I can glean a lot of information from you and the many others. It balances out the diatribe that some post.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
the way that Shannow is going about it makes it appear that using anything but the thicker weights is going to have terrible consequences


"terrible consequences"...That's not what I'm saying or ever said. And honestly, I'm getting over you constantly stating that's my message. If that is the message that you are getting, then you are in error.

You used the 2.3HTHS again...remember that paper said that "some" engines didn't exhibit excessive wear, it's not ALL engines.

You can go even lower with proper engineering...but then you have to make the bearings way bigger just to get piston friction down, so there's a point of diminishing return that I'm not sure when we'll meet it. Those designs, with intentional boundary lubrication are intentionally worn over a service lifetime.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by StevieC
the way that Shannow is going about it makes it appear that using anything but the thicker weights is going to have terrible consequences


"terrible consequences"...That's not what I'm saying or ever said. And honestly, I'm getting over you constantly stating that's my message. If that is the message that you are getting, then you are in error.

You used the 2.3HTHS again...remember that paper said that "some" engines didn't exhibit excessive wear, it's not ALL engines.

You can go even lower with proper engineering...but then you have to make the bearings way bigger just to get piston friction down, so there's a point of diminishing return that I'm not sure when we'll meet it. Those designs, with intentional boundary lubrication are intentionally worn over a service lifetime.


1) I said you made it out to be that way not that you said it.

2) With regards to HTHS that's not all engines and all circumstances. But if you look at the data plots anything over about 2.3 is the same as a 3.0. MOST CASES, NOT ALL CASES and certainly not enough to matter given the sample size.

3) With regards to proper engineering. I cited this. I even called it out that if there was issues with a 20wt that it would be because of improper engineering in those daily drivers under normal circumstances.

4) Again I'm arguing all this based on daily drivers, operated under normal circumstances where a 20wt is spec'ed and used for the vehicles lifetime which I defined as say up to 500,000 miles (not kilometers)

5) Based on what you have presented and what we are arguing there are now folks running around the board calling themselves thickies and scared to use anything lower than 30wt's. This isn't needed for the 99% that will never see the benefit but they are doing so based on the way you are presenting the information.

As I said in the other thread I'm ending this here because we will just keep going around in circles. Good discussion.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by StevieC
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.


I think people who take the time to understand the tribology data and info shown from various sources can make up their minds on what viscosity to use.

Nobody has claimed an engine will "blow-up" on thinner oil, only that there could be some increased ("acceptible") wear for the sake of a little more fuel mileage.

 

[ZeeOSix]

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.


Posting engineering data and graphs pretty much makes it scientific and not antidotal and strawman argument driven. Saying that people are claiming "bad things will happen" is reading way between the lines and a dramatic exaggeration.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
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.


I think people who take the time to understand the tribology data and info shown from various sources can make up their minds on what viscosity to use.

Nobody has claimed an engine will "blow-up" on thinner oil, only that there could be some increased ("acceptible") wear for the sake of a little more fuel mileage.


I didn't say he said exactly those words "blow-up" what I said was that it instills fear in those that don't understand the perspective of how this affects the majority of engines on the road and at what point and it HAS developed a "Thicker is better" crowd already and they are running around giving false advise that bad things will happen if 20wt's are used instead of 30wt's when that isn't the case. The vast majority of folks both in the high mileage club and those that junk cars at the normal throw away points will never see any benefit using a 30wt over the spec'ed 20wt.

For those that understand at an advanced level it's not an issue but a lot of the users here don't as per my discussion with Overkill and so care needs to be taken so that they understand otherwise this board will continue with the arguments over thicker vs thinner as we had over a decade ago with 20w50 vs 30wts and now is the case with 20wt's and 30wts.

I could care less what people use, and I myself have used 30wt's and 20wt's with 0 issues.

 

[JAG]

This talk about tribological data, science, and facts instilling fear reminds me of some people who want safe spaces. I'm not going to cater my posts to those who might get scared of what they think it might mean. If anyone has a question for me, just ask it and I will answer. I'm also not going to throw in caveats such as "Despite all this, know that it is totally fine to use the recommended viscosity grade" because of course it is and this isn't elementary school. We are adults and should be able to handle science, data, and facts like adults should be able to.

 

[StevieC]

Not catering your posts, but giving perspective how the data affects real world use. It's the same reason people will fret over a few increased ppm on a UOA when say 150ppm could be the upper acceptable limit for being concerned. Remember the M1 debate about high iron and all the folks jumping on that wagon?

OMG if anyone used M1 and had higher Iron readings even my a few ppm than someone else with a different oil the cylinder walls were going to fall out of the engine. This is because there wasn't perspective on the subject that explained this was nothing to worry about.

It's this perspective that stops the bickering and misinformation from happening and leads to more scientific discussion rather than hearsay and hyperbole because it leaves room for people to form their own opinions and speculation.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by StevieC
[5) Based on what you have presented and what we are arguing there are now folks running around the board calling themselves thickies and scared to use anything lower than 30wt's. This isn't needed for the 99% that will never see the benefit but they are doing so based on the way you are presenting the information.


I'm sure the people running 30s, and the people switching from a 20 to a 30 (or higher) are comfortable with their decision based on the data.

Those who are comfortable with using 20 or even 16 have their reasons why, and if they feel good about it then that's great.

Lot's of data and info has been laid out in various "thick vs thin" threads and how oil viscosity and HTHS affects various engine components. Some people are "blinded by science", and some are not.

 

[StevieC]

ZeeOSix there is no blanket statement that allows for Thicker to be better because the goal isn't defined and that is necessary to say whether or not the thicker oil with a minuscule decrease in wear will be better than the thinner oil.

If the goal is 1,000,000 miles then maybe the 30wt is better. If the rest of the engine makes it that long.

If the goal is 200,000 or 300,000 miles then a 20wt is perfectly fine and no benefit of the 30wt is realized.

Or like I said the UOA's between both would be drastically different in the spectrum of metals we can measure on them.
Surely this increase in wear is not only outside the spectrum of the UOA.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by StevieC
I didn't say he said exactly those words "blow-up" what I said was that it instills fear in those that don't understand the perspective of how this affects the majority of engines on the road and at what point and it HAS developed a "Thicker is better" crowd already and they are running around giving false advise that bad things will happen if 20wt's are used instead of 30wt's when that isn't the case.


I think anyone with a little engineering logic gets the message about why some people think (based on engineering data and graphs) that a little more viscosity and HTHS at full operating temperature and above (if those conditions occur sporadically) is insuring better wear protection and probably less wear overall. If you think it's "instilling fear" then that's your problem. I don't see it that way.

People can make up their own minds based on these discussions, and personally I really don't care what viscosity or brand of oil someone uses, I only care what I use based on all the data and info presented. But some people take these discussions as a war between two sides, which is probably true for some, but it shouldn't be that way. Instead, it should be an information exchange (and yes, sometimes very technical) so people can use that info to make their decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone to use something they don't want to use.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
I didn't say he said exactly those words "blow-up" what I said was that it instills fear in those that don't understand the perspective of how this affects the majority of engines on the road and at what point and it HAS developed a "Thicker is better" crowd already and they are running around giving false advise that bad things will happen if 20wt's are used instead of 30wt's when that isn't the case.


I think anyone with a little engineering logic gets the message about why some people think (based on enginesring data and graphs) that a little more viscosity at full operating temperature and above (if those conditions occur sporatically) is insuring better wear protection and probably less wear overall. If you think it's "instilling fear" then that's your problem. I don't see it that way.

People can make up their own minds based on these discussions, and personally I really don't care what viscosity or brandvof oil someone uses, I only care what I use based on all the data and info presented. But some people take these dischssions as as a war between two sides, which is probably true for some, but it shouldn't be that way. Instead, it should be an information exchange (and yes, sometimes very technical) so people can use that info to make their decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone to use something they dont want to use.


Well stated

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
People can make up their own minds based on these discussions, and personally I really don't care what viscosity or brand of oil someone uses, I only care what I use based on all the data and info presented. But some people take these discussions as a war between two sides, which is probably true for some, but it shouldn't be that way. Instead, it should be an information exchange (and yes, sometimes very technical) so people can use that info to make their decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone to use something they don't want to use.


Right but if those presenting the information provide some real world perspective then we wouldn't have a Thickie crowd answering oil questions that 20wts are like water and too thin to use and then the folks that do understand calling them out on it, the the bickering that ensues.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
People can make up their own minds based on these discussions, and personally I really don't care what viscosity or brand of oil someone uses, I only care what I use based on all the data and info presented. But some people take these discussions as a war between two sides, which is probably true for some, but it shouldn't be that way. Instead, it should be an information exchange (and yes, sometimes very technical) so people can use that info to make their decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone to use something they don't want to use.


Right but if those presenting the information provide some real world perspective then we wouldn't have a Thickie crowd answering oil questions that 20wts are like water and too thin to use.


As noted, we are all adults. I'm not responsible for anybody's ignorance except my own. If somebody can't grasp the subject matter and goes around peddling hyperbolic nonsense, they are going to do that regardless of how we frame things. We had the cult of CATERHAM here at one point as well, so it isn't just the folks that latch onto the "heavier is better" mantra, it can go any direction.

 

[StevieC]

It has nothing to do with being an adult, it has everything to do with making sure the audience you are presenting to understands what you are presenting and why it's important. It also how misunderstandings happen if it's not presented in a manner that folks understand the proper benefits and where they are realized. Especially when you are presenting quite technical information to a general audience made up of a lot of folks that don't understand to this level.

But I guess if you don't care if the person on the receiving end fully comprehends it and don't care about the nonsense and bickering that will ensue then I guess it's just fine but it WILL deteriorate this board and make it less and less of a great place for information as the bad information spreads and those that have posted the technical information get fed up of people taking it the wrong way.

Further than this I can't explain this any further and I've had enough at this point.

Everyone.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
I didn't say he said exactly those words "blow-up" what I said was that it instills fear in those that don't understand the perspective of how this affects the majority of engines on the road and at what point and it HAS developed a "Thicker is better" crowd already and they are running around giving false advise that bad things will happen if 20wt's are used instead of 30wt's when that isn't the case.


I think anyone with a little engineering logic gets the message about why some people think (based on engineering data and graphs) that a little more viscosity and HTHS at full operating temperature and above (if those conditions occur sporadically) is insuring better wear protection and probably less wear overall. If you think it's "instilling fear" then that's your problem. I don't see it that way.

People can make up their own minds based on these discussions, and personally I really don't care what viscosity or brand of oil someone uses, I only care what I use based on all the data and info presented. But some people take these discussions as a war between two sides, which is probably true for some, but it shouldn't be that way. Instead, it should be an information exchange (and yes, sometimes very technical) so people can use that info to make their decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone to use something they don't want to use.


Bingo. Add to that I was fortunate enough to speak with industry experts who really know what goes on and my decision was easy. There is a lot of great info on this site, there is also a lot of great info off of this site. I took the best of both worlds.

Truth be told I don't care what other people use either. I enjoy these topics and on occasion learn something new, or pick up something I might have missed or overlooked.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
People can make up their own minds based on these discussions, and personally I really don't care what viscosity or brand of oil someone uses, I only care what I use based on all the data and info presented. But some people take these discussions as a war between two sides, which is probably true for some, but it shouldn't be that way. Instead, it should be an information exchange (and yes, sometimes very technical) so people can use that info to make their decisions. Nobody is forcing anyone to use something they don't want to use.

Right but if those presenting the information provide some real world perspective then we wouldn't have a Thickie crowd answering oil questions that 20wts are like water and too thin to use and then the folks that do understand calling them out on it, the the bickering that ensues.


The multitudes of technical papers all pretty much say there is less wear with higher viscosity - not including any anti-wear factors which skews the whole discussion - talking just about the oil viscosity here. There are obviously other trade-offs too (shear friction, higher bearing oil temps, slightly less fuel mileage, etc) with using a higher viscosity oil. It's all a trade-off as has been discussed many times. Yet, you seem to be the "thinner is better" cheerleader even though tons of engineering data has been presented so people can see how viscosity changes things inside an engine. Like said, I think presenting technical engineering data on the subject is beneficial to those who care to study and understand it so they can see the whole picture and make sound decisions for their use.

If you need "real world perspective" beyond your "engines will last way longer than the body" type of 'data point' to convince you that overall wear will be less with a thicker oil, then I guess you'll have to find the studies that fill that gap for you. Actually, many of the technical papers were done on real running engines, and some in the field ... so IMO that's pretty close to real world ... I don't think it's much of a leap to believe the data. These studies have been going on for decades, and they all pretty much show the viscosity/HTHS factor associated with engine wear.

 

[HowAboutThis]

I used some olive oil on my griddle this morning for pancakes even though it is nonstick. I'm not sure what the HTHS is but the pancakes still stuck after the first round. Would a 30wt olive oil perform better in this application than a 20wt?

But seriously, there should be two sites. BITOG for overthinking and BITOG for normal people. It's this 9 page thread that makes me giggle about the users in this site. Such a wide array of over and under thinking.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by StevieC
It has nothing to do with being an adult, it has everything to do with making sure the audience you are presenting to understands what you are presenting and why it's important. It also how misunderstandings happen if it's not presented in a manner that folks understand the proper benefits and where they are realized. Especially when you are presenting quite technical information to a general audience made up of a lot of folks that don't understand to this level..


For those who don't understand the technical information presented, if they hang in there and read it all they will eventually see how the whole puzzle fits together - some even ask questions for clarification and people are happy to clarify things. Understanding tribology isn't something that is instantly intuitive for many. I think everyone here, regardless of how engineering educated or savvy, has learned something in all these technical discussions that happen from time to time.

Originally Posted by StevieC
But I guess if you don't care if the person on the receiving end fully comprehends it and don't care about the nonsense and bickering that will ensue then I guess it's just fine but it WILL deteriorate this board and make it less and less of a great place for information as the bad information spreads and those that have posted the technical information get fed up of people taking it the wrong way.


I see it just the opposite. Science isn't non-sense ... it's what has gotten oil and engines (and pretty much everything else) to where they are today, and it opens up the whole spectrum of what's going on. Sharing technical data isn't going to "deteriorate" this chat board. If anything, it has made this chat board pretty much an authority on many subject matters. "Over thinking" has gotten mankind where they are today, something that "under thinking" could never accomplish.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
It has nothing to do with being an adult, it has everything to do with making sure the audience you are presenting to understands what you are presenting and why it's important.


Sure it does, adults are responsible for their own education. If there is something they don't understand, as JAG noted, ASK. Every technical discussion should NOT need to framed in a novel of elementary introduction before discourse proceeds. There is a wealth of information presented in expansive and informative documents posted by Molakule, Shannow and others that delve into explaining some of this. The information is there, but I can't read it for somebody and I certainly can't understand it for them. It's their responsibility to educate themselves on a subject that they don't understand before engaging in a topic that discusses it, and if that involves asking for links or something else to help, those WILL be provided.

Anyways, enjoy your Sunday night