Why do so many people want to run 0 weight oils?

[daman]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
20 grade oils are working for Ford in Heavy Duty tow applications as well. The mfg's seem to have their acts together.

Exaclly departpaint, but im sure they used a 80w140 when no one was looking huh?

 

[fdcg27]

Why do we have multigrade oils to begin with?
If we follow this to its logical conclusion, then a 0W must provide better flow at any starting temperature than a 5W or a 10W.
I have used 0W oils, since I can see advantages at startup, with no downside.
Of course, I could probably run any 10W-30 year round here, and I doubt that wear would ever be an issue for as long as I could stand to drive the car in which the engine resided, say 200K or so.

 

[XS650]

All else being equal a 10W-30 would be more shear resistant than a 0W or 5w30 but it doesn't make much difference anymore if you are using high quality oil.

In the past it made more difference.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Mark my words: in 10-15 years time (maybe less) the two most common viscosities of oil in new cars will be 0w10 and 0w20.

 

[ottotheclown]

Maybe because they read that Haas guy and the fact 0 is the oil you want re. cold start ups etc. Wear etc. 0 being better because it flows better even on a Fla. morning...Who knows maybe because it is hard to find at times!Moving on--

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
20 grade oils are working for Ford in Heavy Duty tow applications as well. The mfg's seem to have their acts together.

Exaclly departpaint, but im sure they used a 80w140 when no one was looking huh?

Could be, especially for the desert torture test they did. They started with a 80W140 and when they drained it at the end of the test it met 5W20 specs. They fooled the public.

 

[daman]

lol

 

[Panzerman]

Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Maybe because they read that Haas guy and the fact 0 is the oil you want re. cold start ups etc. Wear etc. 0 being better because it flows better even on a Fla. morning...Who knows maybe because it is hard to find at times!Moving on--
That is a perfect example of what looks good on paper, then claiming it will work in the real world. If you read those multitude of numbers and ratios, he has, 5w20 looks perfect and 10w30 looks like it would never work, in the real world, we know that is not the case and although on paper they appear worlds apart, they really are not. If anything, I would say new engines can tolerate a thinner oil and the manufacturer is trying to pick up Cafe anywhere he can. I think I am going to stick with that theory, without all the numbers.

 

[demarpaint]

I believe Dr. Haas did some testing along with oil analysis as well. So IIRC his claims are backed up with UOA results too. Its been a while since I read his articles though.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I believe Dr. Haas did some testing along with oil analysis as well. So IIRC his claims are backed up with UOA results too. Its been a while since I read his articles though.


UOA results are a very poor way to judge an oil's effectiveness at reducing wear. Teardowns are the only accurate way. Come on now, this has been gone over before.

Babying a car on a 20wt that was meant to be run hard on a 60 weight is hardly testing. Of course, I'll agree that the 20wt would still be very effective at reducing wear if the oil temp never went above 160 in those cars.

 

[kr_bitog]

0W works very well on cold temperature startup application, and with current auto transmission the load to engine is not that heavy. However, on hot weather startup and manual transmission, the 0W generally does not really give valuable advantage compared with higher HTHS protection that can be provided by 5W or 10W (even though different brand may have different formulation).

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I believe Dr. Haas did some testing along with oil analysis as well. So IIRC his claims are backed up with UOA results too. Its been a while since I read his articles though.

Indeed. He also qualified those results and his recommendations by saying that he never takes his cars to the track and only drives them for short trips, as BuickGN alluded to.

I fail to understand why, but most people seem to miss that part...

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I believe Dr. Haas did some testing along with oil analysis as well. So IIRC his claims are backed up with UOA results too. Its been a while since I read his articles though.

Indeed. He also qualified those results and his recommendations by saying that he never takes his cars to the track and only drives them for short trips, as BuickGN alluded to.

I fail to understand why, but most people seem to miss that part...


That's what I was trying to point out. I think it needs to be made a little more clear under what conditions he's running the thin stuff. Not necessarily his fault, people tend to skim over things quickly and miss details.

 

[ekpolk]

This thread is a poster child for why I have come to hate our SAE oil viscosity rating system. We get arbitrary numbers that represent disproportional ranges of actual viscosity. Then, for cold starting purposes, we slap a "W" adjacent to a number that looks like it represents a viscosity, but really doesn't (or does so in a very indirect way), not at all like the "hot" number does.

Enough already!

If I were made the dictator of the world tomorrow, oils would have to show their cold and hot viscosities, on the label, in centiStokes (or some other clear, direct measuring units). And the bottles would get an ingredient label, much like our foods do. "This oil contains. . ." It would indicate, in general terms, the base oils and major additives. No precise figures or "how we made it" info -- again just like a food label.

Anyway in such a system, your engine maker could tell you, in plain terms, for good starting, this engine needs an oil that's x-y cSt when cold; and for running protection, one that's from x-y cSt when hot.

OK, rant off. Yeah I know -- it'll never happen. We can't be allowed too much access to info about our oils. . .

 

[NismoMax80]

so what is a respectable ballpark oci for the 0 weight oils? I like EP so i can run 10k oci since it's solid to at least 15k.

what about the 0 green bottles we're talking about? Mobil says nothing. Or should I assume it's just like the regular M1 which should easily last beyond 10k as well?

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: NismoMax80
so what is a respectable ballpark oci for the 0 weight oils? I like EP so i can run 10k oci since it's solid to at least 15k.

what about the 0 green bottles we're talking about? Mobil says nothing. Or should I assume it's just like the regular M1 which should easily last beyond 10k as well?


I would (and plan to) assume exactly that -- but only after my wty is expired...

 

[SpitfireS]

If one would get a real life difference in start-up wear by using 0W oils, the tests proving this would have been published.
So may one conclude: no test results = no difference?

There is a real life difference in viscosity at (lets say) 10C between 0W and 10W oils, it can be up to 25% less for the 0W.
That would probably explain the smoother engine after a cold start with a 0W.
The engine would probably use a bit less fuel too in that short period right after a cold start as engines run rich when they are cold.
Maybe a little less cilinder wash by unburned fuel as a result of 0W oils?

Would it be fair to say an oil pump will be more efficient / have more output pumping a 25% thinner fluid?
(Yes I know its a positive displacement gear pump - it still has to suck-in the oil at atmospheric pressure, its not a closed loop)
If so, pumping a 0W will show a little more oil flow.
The difference will become less as the oil warms up but during those first seconds, maybe a minute, every drop might help.

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
..and so you should, young man!! (visions of as if you just said "I respect my parents"

)

 

[ZZman]

I may have to try a pour test. Put a 5w-20 or 30 and a 0w-20 or 30 in the freezer and then pour them out and see if there is much flow difference at "normal" (0-32 degrees) temps.

Has anyone seen much pour difference when adding oil to a car in say 50-80 degree weather? They would both very quickly pour out of the bottles right? If so than the oil pump should have no problems quickly pumping that oil thru the system.

My original question was more directed on why people use it if not for it's superior cold flow properties. If they don't live in a climate that gets really cold weather (Michigan in winter can see many 0-32 degree days in winter) I just don't see that much performance advantage over 5w.

Many will say if it is a 0w it will have better base stocks to acheive that but as we have talked about before Group III is as good or better that IV most times. It is the total package that matters.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I believe Dr. Haas did some testing along with oil analysis as well. So IIRC his claims are backed up with UOA results too. Its been a while since I read his articles though.


UOA results are a very poor way to judge an oil's effectiveness at reducing wear. Teardowns are the only accurate way. Come on now, this has been gone over before.

Babying a car on a 20wt that was meant to be run hard on a 60 weight is hardly testing. Of course, I'll agree that the 20wt would still be very effective at reducing wear if the oil temp never went above 160 in those cars.


This has been gone over before, in many of the thick vs. thin debates of the past. My point here was that Dr. Haas did quite a bit of research and didn't write that article off the top of his head. We all know tear downs are the best way to determine, wear, how clean an engine is, etc. But without tearing an engine apart the UOA is pretty much the only game in town. Then there are a lot of people who use Dyson labs and put a tremendous amount of faith in them for determining engine condition. I'm pretty sure Dr. Haas didn't rely on a $20 report when doing his testing. He clearly stated he didn't track the car either. He probably selected his oil based on how he planned on using his car, confidence in his research leading up to his decision to try it, and thinking out of the box.

Gary Allan had some good results with a 0W10 oil too, again thinking out of the box.

Let me add I'm a believer in using the oil the engine builder spec'd. Ford has extensively tested their vehicles, and there are many articles showing the results of their tests using 20 grade oils. These oils have proven themselves time and time again, in all kinds of conditions, in engines spec'd for them.

Actually it is pretty simple. Use an oil spec'd for the engine, climate, and conditions you plan on using the vehicle in. If you feel your conditions are unique contact the mfg and ask. Out of warranty use what ever makes you happy. I don't have the resources Dr. Haas has so odds are I would have stuck to Ferrari's spec'd oil as well, or contacted them and asked. Still his car didn't implode. Sometimes thinking out of the box leads to all kinds of positive results, and industry wide improvements.

 

[CourierDriver]

I think we should all move where its 50 degrees F below zero year round so we could write data on how the engine sounds, and better yet, changing the oil in the yard at 50 below,,,who's gonna move first.........lol give me a break