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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
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 published study about cold start wear reduction in colder temperatures with the use of lighter oils. Unfortunately its a diesel in unassisted starting. Since, as you sorta said, if there was a significant reduction in wear - or rather- if there was any practical way to use the data, it would be done. In the case of the HD diesel, it's a "Yeah, so what?" since the same thin oil can't provide the engine's requirements when it's operating normally.

The way it shakes out (my impression/opinion) is that the accelerated wear curve (in respect to cylinder/ring wear) at startup (defined as non-steady state operation) is unavoidable. I think it's unavoidable even with block and or pan warms. Out of the (current conventions) three contributors (endothermic additive reactions, piston expansion, and corrosion) one would somewhat shorten the time to temp. You would probably find that the curve was just reduced in amplitude. You can't preheat pistons to combustion temp levels just by warming the coolant.

After you go through all of that ... you still end up with the start up wear not altering utility or practical longevity to a significant degree (except in extreme circumstances).
 
So when we have an oil with 40*C viscosity of 38 , and an oil with a 40*C viscosity of 45. Is the oil with the 40*C viscosity of 38 is offering better warm up protection? Or are we really splitting hairs unless the engine is used for constant short trip use only, and never reaches operating temps?
 
Originally Posted By: BuickGN

UOA results are a very poor way to judge an oil's effectiveness at reducing wear. Teardowns are the only accurate way.

Here we go again
smirk2.gif
,,well then why do they exist? you do realize 99.9% of why people do UOAs is to determine wear numbers and if they should keep using a particular oil or keep the duration of that OCI.

we all know you like thick oils and thats fine but don't be preaching on the thin is in crowed saying it "wont work and you'll wear your engine out" if used any other way but Sunday driving because that is 100% false.
 
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: BuickGN

UOA results are a very poor way to judge an oil's effectiveness at reducing wear. Teardowns are the only accurate way.

Here we go again
smirk2.gif
,,well then why do they exist? you do realize 99.9% of why people do UOAs is to determine wear numbers and if they should keep using a particular oil or keep the duration of that OCI.

we all know you like thick oils and thats fine but don't be preaching on the thin is in crowed saying it "wont work and you'll wear your engine out" if used any other way but Sunday driving because that is 100% false.


Comedy at it's best. Here you go turning it in to a thick vs thin debate. Show me where I said what you have quoted up there. Again, a very poor attempt, I thought you could do better than that. I haven't once argued against a 20wt since I've been back, only the reduced HTHS and higher NOACK of the 0w oils.

I'm sorry people don't know how to properly use a UOA but you're not baiting me into this argument again. I've said what needs to be said in the past. UOAs are very useful for many other reasons, just not determining wear in the way that they're used by 99% of the people on here. So go back and read my posts instead of making up something and using quotation marks around it to make it seem like mine.
 
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: BuickGN

UOA results are a very poor way to judge an oil's effectiveness at reducing wear. Teardowns are the only accurate way.

Here we go again
smirk2.gif
,,well then why do they exist?

To get an idea of the condition of the oil and to see if there are any obvious hints of something wrong in the engine. The point is that they don't give a full, clear picture. A teardown does.


Originally Posted By: daman
you do realize 99.9% of why people do UOAs is to determine wear numbers

What popular and what's correct are rarely the same.
wink.gif
 
Buick, there are 0w-XX oils, even 0w-30, that have lower NOACKS and higher HT/HS viscosities then any conventional SM/GF-4 oils and many "synthetic" passenger car oils. Look at some of the HDEO 0w-30s. It's all in how an oil is made. Most passenger car oils are blended on the thinner side.

The NOACKS and HT/HS viscosities of synthetic 0w-xx are usually equal to or better then conventional 5w30 and 10w30 oils, so you kind of get the best of both worlds with a 0w-xx oil - equal or usually better high temperature viscosity/oxidation control, and better flow at cold starting temps.

What am I missing, because I'm sure you're going to point it out!
 
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.
+1
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Buick, there are 0w-XX oils, even 0w-30, that have lower NOACKS and higher HT/HS viscosities then any conventional SM/GF-4 oils and many "synthetic" passenger car oils. Look at some of the HDEO 0w-30s. It's all in how an oil is made. Most passenger car oils are blended on the thinner side.

The NOACKS and HT/HS viscosities of synthetic 0w-xx are usually equal to or better then conventional 5w30 and 10w30 oils, so you kind of get the best of both worlds with a 0w-xx oil - equal or usually better high temperature viscosity/oxidation control, and better flow at cold starting temps.

What am I missing, because I'm sure you're going to point it out!

Oh you can count on it.....
smirk2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: BuickGN

UOA results are a very poor way to judge an oil's effectiveness at reducing wear. Teardowns are the only accurate way.

Here we go again
smirk2.gif
,,well then why do they exist?

To get an idea of the condition of the oil and to see if there are any obvious hints of something wrong in the engine. The point is that they don't give a full, clear picture. A teardown does.


Originally Posted By: daman
you do realize 99.9% of why people do UOAs is to determine wear numbers

What popular and what's correct are rarely the same.
wink.gif


Well then tell aaallll these members there wrong,what a joke!!!
 
Originally Posted By: daman
Well then tell aaallll these members there wrong,what a joke!!!

This isn't exactly a cogent way to argue your point.
 
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: daman
Well then tell aaallll these members there wrong,what a joke!!!

This isn't exactly a cogent way to argue your point.

Well to bad,works for me i don't have the desire or time to type out a 5 page report.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Buick, there are 0w-XX oils, even 0w-30, that have lower NOACKS and higher HT/HS viscosities then any conventional SM/GF-4 oils and many "synthetic" passenger car oils. Look at some of the HDEO 0w-30s. It's all in how an oil is made. Most passenger car oils are blended on the thinner side.

The NOACKS and HT/HS viscosities of synthetic 0w-xx are usually equal to or better then conventional 5w30 and 10w30 oils, so you kind of get the best of both worlds with a 0w-xx oil - equal or usually better high temperature viscosity/oxidation control, and better flow at cold starting temps.

What am I missing, because I'm sure you're going to point it out!


Nothing. You're right as long as it's a high quality 0w oil compared to an average 5w or 10w... Or a syn vs dino as you said. But take two nearly identical high quality oils, Redline for instance and compare their 0w-20 vs 5w-20. Significant reduction in HTHS.
 
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The NOACKS and HT/HS viscosities of synthetic 0w-xx are usually equal to or better then conventional 5w30 and 10w30 oils, so you kind of get the best of both worlds with a 0w-xx oil - equal or usually better high temperature viscosity/oxidation control, and better flow at cold starting temps.


You're right as long as it's a high quality 0w oil compared to an average 5w or 10w...


FWIW I recently finished an OCI with Petro Canada's 0W30. This is a Group III oil costing only $5.50 per litre and its published NOACK # and HTHS is 9.9 and 3.1 respectively. (Good stats for such an inexpensive 0W30)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Buick, there are 0w-XX oils, even 0w-30, that have lower NOACKS and higher HT/HS viscosities then any conventional SM/GF-4 oils and many "synthetic" passenger car oils. Look at some of the HDEO 0w-30s. It's all in how an oil is made. Most passenger car oils are blended on the thinner side.

The NOACKS and HT/HS viscosities of synthetic 0w-xx are usually equal to or better then conventional 5w30 and 10w30 oils, so you kind of get the best of both worlds with a 0w-xx oil - equal or usually better high temperature viscosity/oxidation control, and better flow at cold starting temps.

What am I missing, because I'm sure you're going to point it out!


Nothing. You're right as long as it's a high quality 0w oil compared to an average 5w or 10w... Or a syn vs dino as you said. But take two nearly identical high quality oils, Redline for instance and compare their 0w-20 vs 5w-20. Significant reduction in HTHS.


Firstly welcome back BuickGN.

I don't agree with your comparison of RL's 0W-20 and 5W-20.
Their 5W-20 is for all intents and purposes a 30wt oil so it's not an apples to apples comparison. The more viscous the oil the higher the HTHS vis. It's not a good thing or a bad thing it's just what it is.
HTHS viscosity is a valuable spec' not so much because it is taken at 150C but rather how the viscosity is measured; under pressure, which is more representative on how oil behaves in an engine vs kinematic viscosity. It should come as no surprise to anyone who has an oil pressure gauge equipped car and is familiar with RL 5X-XX and heavier oils that they behave like a grade heavier than their SAE grade because they are heavier even at normal operating temp's. RL actually advises customers of this characteristic with their oils suggesting that one can frequently drop a grade when switching to RL.

When comparing oils purportally of the same grade it's best to be aware of any significant difference in their HTHS vis to keep the comparison valid.

Regarding NOACK percentages, while lower is obviously better, since all SM oils must have a volitility under 15% the issue is largely mute. Case in point would be PP 0W-20 which has a NOACK of 14%. Seemngly high, but this shear stable oil has been tested enough by BITOG members with no measureable oil comsumption.
 
I've done a 6900 mile UOA on my wife's PT Cruiser using M1 0w30 AFE. Here's a link to the report:

PTOil_12_09.jpg


There was a fair amount of make-up oil since the PCV system was drinking a lot, a problem subsequently fixed with a PCV oil trap- it now uses less than 1/2 quart in 5000 miles.

Draw your own conclusions, but it looks like it should be OK to 6k miles even without all the make-up oil (I'll know when I run my next UOA since the oil consumption is gone). I probably wouldn't push it to 10k miles like I might with M1 EP but then I'm cautious by nature.

As to why 0w30? Well, I just don't see the downside especially in a small, roller-cammed modern engine. I suspect that the 0wXX oils start with a significantly better base stock than 10wXX oils from the same manufacturer (boutique oil makers excluded). You can make a decent 10w30 out of *anything* now, but it takes a better inherent base stock VI to make a good 0w30.
 
BuickGN, I should have mentioned if you want to compare RL's 5W-20 to a 0W oil their own 0w30 would be better since they both have similar HTHS viscosities but the 0W oil is lighter at temps as high as 90F due to it's superior VI. I should also mention RL's 0w30 has proven to be very shear stable. IMO it is a superior oil although it is somewhat more expensive.

440Magnum, a good report with the M1 0w30 holding it's viscosity well with plenty of reserve TBN. Next time I'd go 8,000 miles OCI.
 
Anyone know who makes Supertech 0w30 for Walmart here in Canada?
It's on sale for $4 a quart which is a good price here and I picked some up to use in the my mom's Escape next winter. She's one of those folks that would never plug her vehicle in no matter how cold it gets. Figured I give it a go for $20.
 
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.
Real world experience is messing up the I read it on the internet so it has to be true karma type thought!!!
 
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: BuickGN

UOA results are a very poor way to judge an oil's effectiveness at reducing wear. Teardowns are the only accurate way.

Here we go again
smirk2.gif
,,well then why do they exist?

To get an idea of the condition of the oil and to see if there are any obvious hints of something wrong in the engine. The point is that they don't give a full, clear picture. A teardown does.


Originally Posted By: daman
you do realize 99.9% of why people do UOAs is to determine wear numbers

What popular and what's correct are rarely the same.
wink.gif


Well then tell aaallll these members there wrong,what a joke!!!


Doug Hillary, who has 50 years experience on this subject is the basis for Buick's argument. He created a very nice "article of the month" on this subject some time back.

Story on Doug's thoughts

About the correct and incorrect use of inexpensive UOA's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Clearing up common misconceptions with Oil weights
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
tired
S
Viscosity: Engine protection Vs. enhanced mileage
5 6 7
Replies
135
Views
6K
Carlostrece
C
Tundra oil
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
tired
Z
HPL No VII 5w-30 in L83
Replies
1
Views
613
Patman
N
Toyota 2.4T oil recs (23 RX350)
Replies
14
Views
522
N4TECguy
Back
Top Bottom