Would you sacrifice engine life......

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
Oh SNAP!!!! It's thin vs. thick oil again!!!


Yeah pretty much.

I'd sacrifice engine life for my own amusement, eg, hammering it, even though this doesn't really cause harm.

I'd do it for a warm passenger compartment in winter.

I wouldn't, for MPG. I'd get a lighter car, "better" transmission (eg stick shift), cheezier tires, etc. But not engine wear.

 

[webfors]

0w20 makes my car go more faster

 

[OneEyeJack]

Friction involves a bit more than oil viscosity.

If you keep a vehicle you might be better off making the mistake of using an oil with a slightly higher viscosity than idea rather than a bit too thin.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: stchman
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me the natural association would be increased MPG and LOWER wear.

But I could be wrong


The thinner oils may not lubricate and protect quite as well as something thicker, hence more wear.

The thinner oils create less internal drag and friction, hence increased MPG.


The only way metal wears is by friction, if metal is indeed wearing as you say with a thinner oil then the MPGs are going to drop.


Nope, the lowest friction point is at a higher wear level than the lowest wear level.

It occurs just as hydrodynamic lubrication is ceasing, and when the boundary lubrication, and additives kick in.

Problem with statements that "feel" right is that they are often wrong.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Leonardo629
how do you increase friction/wear and increase MPG at the same time?

The standard hypermilers playbook isn't ideal for an engine.
Thinner oil
Run oil at minimum level
Shut off engine at most opportunities, stoplights, coasting.
Run the engine at lower rpms and bigger throttle openings.

 

[NHGUY]

I wonder about Mazda SkyActiv engines.Bearings are smaller,less drag on rings...I want to see one at 150K miles that isn't pushing oil or knocking.

 

[gathermewool]

It seems to be, that what puts modern engines into an early grave is mostly due to poor designs and maintenance, which may be at least partially related to your choice of oil.

 

[suspiciousmind]

The benefit of thinner oil is reduced pumping loss.

 

[Kuato]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
This should be good!

Oh yeah...it's the xxw20 vs xxw30 debate in different clothes!

However it IS a valid discussion since this is how the consumer must look at it. If you plan to trade in your vehicle every 3 years, obviously longevity (as pertains to how long your engine lasts) means virtually nothing, since anything made today should make it to 200k.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: expat
Would you sacrifice a small amount of your engines life expectancy for a small gain in fuel economy?


My answer to that question would be an emphatic NO.

 

[GMorg]

I would gladly exchange triple-the-wear for triple-the-mileage.

 

[GMorg]

I would not exchange half-the-wear for half-the-mileage.

 

[Red91]

I was under the impression that what 0W-20 lacked in viscosity it made up for in a rich anti-wear add pack. Same said for the new 16 and 8 grades. So, if that is the case, seems that running 0W-20 or 10W-40 is going to yield the same wear results and a fractional difference in fuel economy.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: expat
Would you sacrifice a small amount of your engines life expectancy for a small gain in fuel economy?


My answer to that question would be an emphatic NO.


But what if you were the manufacturer?

 

[tig1]

No, I would not sacrifice engine life for MPG. That's why I use M1 0-20. OH! I'm not!!

 

[stchman]

This thread cracks me up.

There is no proof that using a slightly thicker oil in an engine that sees average day to day duties, that said engine will last longer. I am of course excluding cars that are used on a race track.

Honda has been using 5W-20 in their cars for YEARS and it is not like the modern Hondas last 1/2 of what older Hondas would last.

Oil for cars used to be 40 and 50 weight in the old days and said engines didn't last nearly as long as today's engines(mileage-wise).

Maybe one of today's engines might go 500K instead of 400K on a slightly thicker oil, but who knows?

 

[RTexasF]

To actually answer your question.......YES! I'm 66 years old and own an '08 RAV4 V-6 with less than 20K miles. What do I have to lose?

 

[fdcg27]

Who has ever suggested that anyone should?
Run any engine on the recommended grade for the useful life of the vehicle in question and the engine will likely still be running well when the vehicle is shipped to China as shredded scrap metal.

 

[PandaBear]

Need to quantify this question.

I'd sacrifice engine life from 500k miles to 400k miles to go from 40mpg to 50mpg.

I'd not sacrifice engine life from 250k miles to 200k miles to go from 40mpg to 50mpg.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: stchman
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me the natural association would be increased MPG and LOWER wear.

But I could be wrong


The thinner oils may not lubricate and protect quite as well as something thicker, hence more wear.

The thinner oils create less internal drag and friction, hence increased MPG.


The only way metal wears is by friction, if metal is indeed wearing as you say with a thinner oil then the MPGs are going to drop.


You are assuming that friction is what wear the engine, but ignore most of the trade off engine design do that cause expensive repair is usually not friction wear related:

1) low tension ring
2) direct injection
3) turbo charger
4) (transmission not engine, but still expensive to repair) dual clutch tranny or cvt
5) variable valve timing component wear