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

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
I run my bracket car, 1993 Camaro with LT1 engine at 160k miles, on Amsoil Dominator 5w-20. That said, the highest oil temperature I've ever logged with that car is 181*F while idling back to the pits. It runs for less than 3 minutes total from startup to shut down with at least an hour cooldown in between.


5W-20 at 180F is about the same viscosity as 5w30 at 200F. Your oil temp is probably even lower when you launch off the line, so it might be closer to a xW-40 at 200F while you're starting off the line.


https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2990.pdf

Look at the HTHS...

 

[ZeeOSix]

That's a pretty up there HTHS for 5W-20, and about the same as most 5w30 oils.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
There is less wear at start-up with thinner oils


Is there ?

Can you provide some evidence to that statement ?

Quantification ?

(Oh, and it's not "flow"...unless at the limits of Pumpability, and that's "W" grade, NOT operating viscosity)

I consider frequent Bitog 'unconditional' claims of less start-up/warm-up wear with thinner oils as completely baseless.
I would like to see the evidence too, from say SAE/post grad papers.

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by Shannow
The challlenge, per the OEMs is to provide greater economy with "acceptable" increases in wear (Honda, Ford)
....or with .........
Stronger boundary layers from advanced additives reduce wear in the greater % of non-hydrodynamic conditions we get from thinner oils.

.. thinner oils with 'advanced additives' vs thicker oils with 'non-advanced additives', i.e different additive package ......
and probably of two entirely different base oil parameters (other than viscosity related) .....
Are you not comparing apple with oranges, in the context of wear , and claiming ALL the 'credits' or 'non-credits' as being due to a particular oil .... be it thinner or thicker, conveniently forgetting/ignoring metal wear related to additive packages and base oil parameters ?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
The conspiracy that the thinner oils don't offer protection like a thicker oil would all in the name of Fuel Economy. That's just complete nonsense.


Here's what Lubrizol stated...obviously they didn't get your level of understanding of the conspiracy, and have needlessly and baselessly building in workarounds for a non-existent problem.

https://www.lubrizoladditives360.co...e-technology-to-address-wear-challenges/
Quote
In April of 2013, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) introduced a new, low viscosity
A measure of a fluid's resistance to flow. A fluid with a higher viscosity flows less easily.
grade specification in revisions made to the J300 Engine Oil Classification. Formally labeled as SAE 16, the new oil specification will help OEMs meet increasingly strict corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) requirements. However, ultra-low viscosity grade oils can create durability challenges.


Quote
To further contribute to higher fuel economy, a reduction in the oil's high-temperature, high-shear (HTHS
High Temperature High Shear. A measure of a fluid's resistance to flow under conditions resembling highly-loaded journal bearings in fired internal combustion engines, typically 1 million s-1 at 150°C.
) viscosity limits has also been defined in SAE 16. Set at a minimum of 2.3 mPa⋅s at 150°C, this marks the first time ever that SAE has defined this limit below 2.6. Although it will help improve fuel efficiency throughout the entire oil drain interval, it opens the door for increased wear and tear on critical engine parts. This makes the development of new additives suitable for ultra-thin oils in high power density engines that much more critical.

 

[Shannow]

Infineum…
https://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/march-2015/ultra-low-viscosity-challenges
Quote
Legislation and consumer demand make improving fuel economy performance a high priority for today's passenger car OEMs. And, because fuel economy derived from advanced lubricants comes at a smaller cost than redesigning hardware, it is increasingly being seen as an attractive route to efficiency improvement.


That's what the NHTSA CAFE documents say too...that it's cheaper to change the viscosity than redesign...but as you pointed out a page or so ago, they ARE redesigning, both engine components and additives....

Quote
Low viscosity and durability challenges
The first formulation challenge presented by moving to lower viscosity lubricants is how to balance the desire for fuel economy with the need to protect the engine and all its components.
The thinner oil films associated with low viscosity fluids mean it is harder for the oil to keep the loaded contact surfaces in the engine sufficiently apart from each other. This can lead to accelerated wear rates, and even locally increased friction.

Infineum studies indicate that, in some engines, reducing lubricant viscosities to 2.3 HTHS presents little risk of engine component wear. Below this level, specific engine components, for example the top ring and bearings, observe higher wear rates. To ensure ultra low viscosity lubricants deliver fuel economy and wear protection it is becoming increasingly important to co-engineer the vehicle hardware and lubricant system.


Some other discussion on issues and motives in this preso…

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f8/deer12_bansal.pdf

I challenge you to find a paper that states that the drive for thinner oils was specifically for improved engine longevity/durability.

They are ALL for economy/CO2, and all list the workarounds in additives or engine components to maintain durability.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
That's a pretty up there HTHS for 5W-20, and about the same as most 5w30 oils.


That's why I run it.

 

[StevieC]

Shannow,

Quote

Low viscosity and durability challenges
The first formulation challenge presented by moving to lower viscosity lubricants is how to balance the desire for fuel economy with the need to protect the engine and all its components.
The thinner oil films associated with low viscosity fluids mean it is harder for the oil to keep the loaded contact surfaces in the engine sufficiently apart from each other. This can lead to accelerated wear rates, and even locally increased friction. (It says "Can lead to" not "Does lead to")

Infineum studies indicate that, in some engines, reducing lubricant viscosities to 2.3 HTHS presents little risk of engine component wear. Below this level, specific engine components, for example the top ring and bearings, observe higher wear rates. To ensure ultra low viscosity lubricants deliver fuel economy and wear protection it is becoming increasingly important to co-engineer the vehicle hardware and lubricant system.


So there is the proof that not all 20 weights are evil and that you can find 20 weights that do the job just fine. This would explain why the 5w20 with a HTHS of 2.6 did just fine in the Journey that was spec'ed for a 30wt previously.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by zeng
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
There is less wear at start-up with thinner oils
Is there?Can you provide some evidence to that statement ?Quantification?

I consider frequent Bitog 'unconditional' claims of less start-up/warm-up wear with thinner oils as completely baseless.I would like to see the evidence too, from say SAE/post grad papers.


You two ought to read about some actual engineering tests once in a while instead of getting yer knickers in a twist about the topic.
Why not just present facts on this forum? There's an idea.
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00368790010352691 and it was a cyliner liner decrease in wear of around 50%.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by zeng
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
There is less wear at start-up with thinner oils
Is there?Can you provide some evidence to that statement ?Quantification?

I consider frequent Bitog 'unconditional' claims of less start-up/warm-up wear with thinner oils as completely baseless.I would like to see the evidence too, from say SAE/post grad papers.


You two ought to read about some actual engineering tests once in a while instead of getting yer knickers in a twist about the topic.
Why not just present facts on this forum? There's an idea.
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/00368790010352691 and it was a cyliner liner decrease in wear of around 50%.


5W-40 is "thinner oil" ?

Engine test results showed that the use of full synthetic SAE 5W40 grade oils based on Polyalphaolefin provided enhanced low temperature cylinder liner wear protection.

 

[Kamele0N]

@StevieC...

Why dont we have 0w20 or 5w20 HDEO then on the market? Transport is bigger consumer of fuel...so in nowadays "bio-eco" world we will only benifit from low HTHS HDEO...fleet operators would love such oil

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Kamele0N
@StevieC...

Why dont we have 0w20 or 5w20 HDEO then on the market? Transport is bigger consumer of fuel...so in nowadays "bio-eco" world we will only benifit from low HTHS HDEO...fleet operators would love such oil

If you read above I actually stated that thicker oils have their place such as severe duty like towing (or heavy loads). This would be why. We are talking about your average vehicle running around everyday driving.

 

[ffhdriver]

Please clear up my misunderstanding. When the engine and ambient temperatures are hot and the 0-20W oil is "acting" like a 20W oil, isn't the viscosity the same as the viscosity of the 20W oil I used in my '52 Ford V8 ? Thanks.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
5W-40 is "thinner oil" ?Engine test results showed that the use of full synthetic SAE 5W40 grade oils based on Polyalphaolefin provided enhanced low temperature cylinder liner wear protection.
Comparatively, yes, it's "5w" part is thinner than a "15w". The real physical parameter here is CCS viscosity at start-up. If you look at the paper's illustrations, you'll see the start-up viscosities (CCS) and the 5x wear factor truckers experience on a cold morning, and one then can smoothely extrapolate with conservative assumptions, to around room temperature or so for every-day differences during warmup.

Since a 5w40 and 15w40's CCSs will converge at around 60F, we can take the -6F(-21C) and see how, as viscosities converge, the wear also converges, when going through +10F, +20F, +30F, .... you get the idea.

 

[SuperSalad]

Originally Posted by ffhdriver
Please clear up my misunderstanding. When the engine and ambient temperatures are hot and the 0-20W oil is "acting" like a 20W oil, isn't the viscosity the same as the viscosity of the 20W oil I used in my '52 Ford V8 ? Thanks.

A 0W-20 oil acts like a 0W-20 oil and that is it. There is no acting like this grade or acting like that grade at different temperatures. It meets the specifications it meets at the designated temperatures. It is thick when cold and thin when hot. The SAE 20 specification is not the same as the SAE 20W specification.

The 20W specification only has low temperature and a minimum viscosity specification. So the "20W" you used in the past was likely a 20W-50 or thereabouts, just not labelled for the high temperature spec.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by MotoTribologist
... When the engine and ambient temperatures are hot and the 0-20W oil is "acting" like a 20W oil, isn't the viscosity the same as the viscosity of the 20W oil I used in my '52 Ford V8 ? ....
... So the "20W" you used in the past was likely a 20W-50 or thereabouts, just not labelled for the high temperature spec.[/quote]Wouldn't it more likely have been a 20W-20 in the 1950's?

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by MotoTribologist
Originally Posted by ffhdriver
... When the engine and ambient temperatures are hot and the 0-20W oil is "acting" like a 20W oil, isn't the viscosity the same as the viscosity of the 20W oil I used in my '52 Ford V8 ? ....
... So the "20W" you used in the past was likely a 20W-50 or thereabouts, just not labelled for the high temperature spec.
Wouldn't it more likely have been a 20W-20 in the 1950's?

 

[SuperSalad]

Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by MotoTribologist
Originally Posted by ffhdriver
... When the engine and ambient temperatures are hot and the 0-20W oil is "acting" like a 20W oil, isn't the viscosity the same as the viscosity of the 20W oil I used in my '52 Ford V8 ? ....
... So the "20W" you used in the past was likely a 20W-50 or thereabouts, just not labelled for the high temperature spec.
Wouldn't it more likely have been a 20W-20 in the 1950's?

I would doubt it. Its high temperature viscosity was probably far too high to be an SAE 20.

If you are referring to the classifications of the 50's, I have no idea since it was the wild west back then when it came to labeling.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by ffhdriver
... When the engine and ambient temperatures are hot and the 0-20W oil is "acting" like a 20W oil, isn't the viscosity the same as the viscosity of the 20W oil I used in my '52 Ford V8 ? ....

You said "0-20w", & I think you meant 0w-20, right? If that is so, then, basically yes, the "20" part of 0w-20 is the hot KV100 & HTHS must be above a certain amount too. All hot measures of viscosity.
When you use a 1952 oil as a reference here, it would be hard to guess what that might be. Chances are they were measuring a low-shear viscosity at 100C though, so, maybe it would equal a modern 0w-20's hot viscosity at least at 100C (probably not the HTHS though).

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Shannow,

Quote

Low viscosity and durability challenges
The first formulation challenge presented by moving to lower viscosity lubricants is how to balance the desire for fuel economy with the need to protect the engine and all its components.
The thinner oil films associated with low viscosity fluids mean it is harder for the oil to keep the loaded contact surfaces in the engine sufficiently apart from each other. This can lead to accelerated wear rates, and even locally increased friction. (It says "Can lead to" not "Does lead to")

Infineum studies indicate that, in some engines, reducing lubricant viscosities to 2.3 HTHS presents little risk of engine component wear. Below this level, specific engine components, for example the top ring and bearings, observe higher wear rates. To ensure ultra low viscosity lubricants deliver fuel economy and wear protection it is becoming increasingly important to co-engineer the vehicle hardware and lubricant system.


So there is the proof that not all 20 weights are evil and that you can find 20 weights that do the job just fine. This would explain why the 5w20 with a HTHS of 2.6 did just fine in the Journey that was spec'ed for a 30wt previously.



Originally Posted by Infineum
Infineum studies indicate that, in some engines,


I'm done talking to you...why did you specifically leave out the part that made the quote ?

edit...and pick that and that line only out of all the quotes I posted ?

Your selective conformational bias knows no bounds...