Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones

[Shannow]

OK, I'm typing slowly...

They must do "everything in their control"

Which includes all the things that they DO do to influence the end user.

And per a LOT of threads, where people reckon that not installing 0W16 will damage their engine, or upset their cam phasers, they are doing a very good job at creating perceptions and behaviours.

The fact that so many here are so defensive on it all being for the improved longevity of their ride, the disqualification of every thread to a thick/thin "debate" (complete with the usual dead horse flogging), the statements that these oils aren't specced in Oz because while they can deliver a whole car, the oil can't make it.

Shows how successful they are, to what is supposed to be a motivated, intelligent consumer base (BITOG).

Within their control bbhero.

 

[wemay]

I used to take issue with putting anything other than what's printed on fill cap in the car. It was a psychological hold on me because i didn't care to know better, to much "life" going on around me and full trust in the mfr that what they put on that cap is the "best" for my vehicle in terms of longevity and wear protection.

Then i joined bitog.

This article from Machinery Lubrication adds the same insight as many of the poster's here...

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/518/motor-oils

I still believe that the FE recommended viscosity will be adequate in most instances, but it's a choice worth evaluating in your specific situation. Sometimes it takes time.

 

[buster]

Quote
According to R.L. Polk (IHS Automotive) the average lifetime of modern cars is trending up. In 2009, the average lifetime of a vehicle on the road was 9.4 years. In 2013 that number increased to 10.8 years and again in 2015 to 11.4 years. Engineering standards for automotive engines have vastly increased within the past 15 years, which has done much to prolong the useful life of an engine.

Engines produced now have higher common standards than ever before. They are rigorously tested, built with better materials and have more innovative designs than ever before. These advancements are the result of the EPA and similar regulatory forces around the world setting higher emissions standards.

New standards lead to increased efficiency, reduced emissions and less wear.


I fail to see this idea that the "deep state" and regulatory bodies are making cars worse. The data just doesn't show that.

*I'm not saying lower viscosity oils won't provide the same level protectioin as higher viscosity or shorten the full potential engine life. What I am saying is engines appear to be lasting longer and getting better with time, despite the changes to lower viscosity oils.

 

[ka9mnx]

Buster:
Good post and I agree. I agree OEM's and oil blenders are doing better. But, like anything "new", not without a few hiccups.

Shannow points out that very few of us are trying to keep our vehicles alive as long as we are breathing. So for 90% of the users out there (including BITOG members) the longevity issue is mute...

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
Silk,

You do realise that what you're saying will be seen by some of our more extreme BITOG brethren as dangerous heresy? Small engines will be seen as creeping Socialism! You'll be saying universal healthcare is a good thing next!!



^^^^^^

True I have to say...

The weight or safety in those "smart" cars though is not really all that great... Second point of note... Is that many people in this country live quite a distance from work or other places like grocery stores, school etc.. this country is way, way bigger than yours. Third point is there are still a sizeable number of people who actually live where the extra room and power is needed and used on a daily basis.

I do think that for people living in the large urban centers of the US could be served quite well with a smaller motor/smaller vehicle. Especially when all they do is stay in those large urban centers.

I do not care for the big donkey whoomping sized SUVs and CUVs... But it is not my place to tell others what to drive.. And it should not be the govt job either to do so.



BBHero,

I accept all of the above but might add the following...

Regarding safety, like a lot of BITOGers, I started driving in the 1970s. The cars I drove back then we're bigger than what I drive today but they were complete death traps! I drove a Morris 1100 that was full of rust, had no airbags, had remould tyres, leaked brake fluid into the rear drums & had a hand brake that the wife ripped out of the floor one day, yet I survived! In relative terms, the 845 kg (1837 lb) car I drive today, with it's ABS, six airbags, electronic stability control, etc, etc is infinitely safer.

Yes, we are a small country but if you want, you can still rack up the miles here. We're currently visiting relatives & it's a 500 mile round trip. That may not sound much by US standards but these days my driving is constrained not by the car but my ability to concentrate for six hours straight. There are plenty of cars just like mine for sale which are a couple of years old with 50,000 miles on the clock so they will 'mile munch' quite happily if that's what you want to do.

BTW, no one 'forces me' to drive a small car. It's very much my own choice. However I do see the day approaching when 'personal choice' has to be
severely restricted for the good of everyone. England has just had its hottest summer since records began. I think Japan & many other countries saw the same. I may be be an atheist but even I can tell when God is sending us a message which we're ignoring at our peril!

 

[nap]

Originally Posted by wemay
But since the march towards even lower viscosity is the industry trend, will the chemistry of these oils ever match the physical properties of the thicker oils where wear is considered? Are we there yet? Is it even possible?


You are basically asking whether a mix of substances could perfectly match the physical properties of another (mix of) substance(s). I don't think so, but feel free to prove me wrong (non-oil related examples are welcome too).

 

[PimTac]

However I do see the day approaching when 'personal choice' has to be
severely restricted for the good of everyone



I hope to not see that day when freedom of choice is taken away.

 

[ka9mnx]

wemay:

I'm no oil guru and I have no idea the answer to you question. But excellent post and discussion!

I tend to agree with nap and others. There is no substitute for viscosity, YET.

PimTac:

Boy I cannot agree with you more. Unfortunately are freedoms are being eroded at an alarming rate.

 

[Cujet]

I now have an hour and 10 minute commute, often in snow. I won't be doing it on a 50cc scooter. Nor will I be doing it in a tiny car. I want some mass around me when skidding highway vehicles hit me. An F150 4x4 will work.

Small cars are not the answer. The Tesla Model S is proof of that. Efficient, fast, safe, capable. Technology is always the right answer.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted by Cujet
I now have an hour and 10 minute commute, often in snow.


Excuse my ignorance, but what is your definition of "often", as this article suggests once in about 28 years for Florida?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-reg-snow-in-florida-20180103-story.html

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by nap
Originally Posted by Cujet
I now have an hour and 10 minute commute, often in snow.


Excuse my ignorance, but what is your definition of "often", as this article suggests once in about 28 years for Florida?

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-reg-snow-in-florida-20180103-story.html


Wintering in North East PA now. Reverse seasonal so to speak.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by Garak
I think what we have to look at, both from a fuel economy and a wear reduction standpoint, is the law of diminishing returns. There's only so much fuel economy to be had based upon reduction in friction and reducing pumping losses, and the chemistry can also go so far.

I agree. Everything seems to be a trade off.

 

[Cujet]

Quote
Conclusion:
The 500h engine test with low viscosity oil 10W-30 (versus 15w40) and extended drainage time engine was successfully concluded without concerns. Some wear increase was observed on the piston rings but the more resistant alternatives, showed lower wear with the low viscosity oil than the current part with the higher viscosity oil. Longer tests and analysis of other engine parts are recommended. On the tests components were the wear increase was higher, MAHLE has already alternatives showing lower wear with the low viscosity oil than the current one with the higher viscosity oil.

(PDF) Low viscosity oils impact on heavy duty diesel engine components. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_on_heavy_duty_diesel_engine_components [accessed Sep 15 2018].
Originally Posted by StevieC

here's something "fresher" turtle...
https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_on_heavy_duty_diesel_engine_components


The 100% liner wear increase, noted elsewhere in the PDF with 0W oils is quite telling.

My conclusion remains the same: Low viscosity oils increase wear and better components will be required. That does nothing for us today or in the future with manufacturers who fail to choose those magic long life parts.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Quote
Conclusion:
The 500h engine test with low viscosity oil 10W-30 (versus 15w40) and extended drainage time engine was successfully concluded without concerns. Some wear increase was observed on the piston rings but the more resistant alternatives, showed lower wear with the low viscosity oil than the current part with the higher viscosity oil. Longer tests and analysis of other engine parts are recommended. On the tests components were the wear increase was higher, MAHLE has already alternatives showing lower wear with the low viscosity oil than the current one with the higher viscosity oil.

(PDF) Low viscosity oils impact on heavy duty diesel engine components. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_on_heavy_duty_diesel_engine_components [accessed Sep 15 2018].
Originally Posted by StevieC

here's something "fresher" turtle...
https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_on_heavy_duty_diesel_engine_components


The 100% liner wear increase, noted elsewhere in the PDF with 0W oils is quite telling.

My conclusion remains the same: Low viscosity oils increase wear and better components will be required. That does nothing for us today or in the future with manufacturers who fail to choose those magic long life parts.




I believe the manufacturers have been using better components over the past few years. Again, we are not seeing mass failures.

 

[kschachn]

And why the constant reference to 0W oils? Is the 0W-40 I use in my BMW too thin?

 

[teddyboy]

Originally Posted by kschachn
And why the constant reference to 0W oils? Is the 0W-40 I use in my BMW too thin?


Isn't the conclusion that even 0 weight is too viscous at start up, even during summer?

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by Shannow
OK, I'm typing slowly...

They must do "everything in their control"

Which includes all the things that they DO do to influence the end user.

And per a LOT of threads, where people reckon that not installing 0W16 will damage their engine, or upset their cam phasers, they are doing a very good job at creating perceptions and behaviours.

The fact that so many here are so defensive on it all being for the improved longevity of their ride, the disqualification of every thread to a thick/thin "debate" (complete with the usual dead horse flogging), the statements that these oils aren't specced in Oz because while they can deliver a whole car, the oil can't make it.

Shows how successful they are, to what is supposed to be a motivated, intelligent consumer base (BITOG).

Within their control bbhero.



Ahh yeah... What you say here was never in question

What you say above... Is and has been absolutely totally correct all along.

I'm just saying what owners can do and what does happen in what they ultimately choose what to do.

You see... We were never in a real disagreement here.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by kschachn
And why the constant reference to 0W oils? Is the 0W-40 I use in my BMW too thin?


Not at all. Many 0W-40 oils are fantastic.

It's the 0W-20, 0W-16 and 0W-8 oils that are quite thin.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by kschachn
And why the constant reference to 0W oils? Is the 0W-40 I use in my BMW too thin?


Two factors involved in the wear testing ... HTHS and different anti-wear additives between the 15W (4.35 cP) and 0W (3.81 cP) oils tested. Would have to do a test with the anti-wear additives being identical in different viscosities to see only the effect of the viscosity on cylinder liner wear. Snip it from the PDF.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by buster
I fail to see this idea that the "deep state" and regulatory bodies are making cars worse. The data just doesn't show that.

Generally speaking, I agree, and it's hard to argue otherwise. However, point of view is important. Vehicle emissions have improved greatly over the years. The same applies to safety. None of that can be disputed. Sometimes, though, the way fuel economy is sought just doesn't work out as well as the safety and emissions side of things have.