My experiences with thin oil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: tdi-rick
Originally Posted By: vxcalais

....straight away he told them they have poison in there, theres a chemical in it that shouldnt be in the engine and so on.


I forgot the clincher, a woman walked in and asked for sewing machine oil, and he told her she needed castor oil
LOL.gif


"yep, all that light stuff is castor oil, that's what you need.."

fair dinkum
smirk2.gif
.....


So did they sell her the Castor racing oil ? Crooks i tell ya.
 
Doug, you said you were involved in the development of Castrol Edge etc. are you one of those gentleman in the Advert, where the engines are revved as high as possible and the sump, blots etc from the engine goes flying on the non castrol car !?
 
Originally Posted By: vxcalais
Doug any experience with Penrite Sin 0W50 ? Seems to meet all the right specs for oil and manufacturers. Very wide viscosity range.


I think if you check it says 'meets or exceeds' but not licensed or approved.

Having said that, I have it on good authority that Penrite's SIN range is showing up very well in real world testing.
I had a fair bit of antipathy towards them for the last fifteen years. I couldn't handle their 'thicker is better' [censored] for starters and their base oils were only GI Bright Stock, but things have changed in the last several years.
I don't know who their additive supplier is, nor their PAO and ester suppliers, but they source their GIII bases from Korea which I'm told are amongst the very best in the world.

I'm currently trialling their Diesel SP 10W-40 in two engines with quite a few years of Delvac 1 UOA's behind them, so it will be interesting.
 
Originally Posted By: vxcalais

So did they sell her the Castor racing oil ? Crooks i tell ya.


Dunno, I walked at that
56.gif

$40/litre for the Motul was miles too steep for me anyway.
 
Originally Posted By: tdi-rick
Originally Posted By: vxcalais
Doug any experience with Penrite Sin 0W50 ? Seems to meet all the right specs for oil and manufacturers. Very wide viscosity range.


I think if you check it says 'meets or exceeds' but not licensed or approved.

Having said that, I have it on good authority that Penrite's SIN range is showing up very well in real world testing.
I had a fair bit of antipathy towards them for the last fifteen years. I couldn't handle their 'thicker is better' [censored] for starters and their base oils were only GI Bright Stock, but things have changed in the last several years.
I don't know who their additive supplier is, nor their PAO and ester suppliers, but they source their GIII bases from Korea which I'm told are amongst the very best in the world.

I'm currently trialling their Diesel SP 10W-40 in two engines with quite a few years of Delvac 1 UOA's behind them, so it will be interesting.


What a coincidence, i always wanted to try their synth, semi synth diesel range. It seems Penrite do still blend alot of their semis with Group 1. Which is what keeps their cost down. They seem to also be using recycled/re-refined base stocks. Mobil and Shell still use heaps of Group 1 dont they ? Especially whats refined from Australia sources ? Isnt all of Australias GRoup 3 from Korea that Shell, Valvo, Mobil use ? Except Chevron/Caltex may get is somewhere else, their own stocks etc.

I have been using thier Sin range diff oils, and want to try the trans oils etc. Very competitive pricing for what is it compared to others.....also easy to find.
 
Originally Posted By: vxcalais


What a coincidence, i always wanted to try their synth, semi synth diesel range. It seems Penrite do still blend alot of their semis with Group 1. Which is what keeps their cost down. They seem to also be using recycled/re-refined base stocks.



I think the Group I oils are still used due to their lubricity and additive solvency and the fact it isn't very cold here so there isn't the need for low pour points.
I'm not sure about Penrite using re-refined base oils as they always used to claim they used virgin base stocks. At least they acknowledge what they use in each lube, I'll see if I can find the link I posted for Sprintman once, and their straight synthetics are just that, PAO/ester blends.
They also acknowledge that shear occurs in the wide viscosity spread oils and recommend grades accordingly.
Quite refreshing for an oil company.
At least they are now producing oils with a 'normal' viscosity range, and not just super thick stuff.

Whenever they claim 'synthetic performance' they acknowledge they are using Group III oils (+PAO's and/or esters) unlike Shell who quite loudly proclaim their XHVI oils are synthetic.
 
Yes in the Sin Range, they have PAO/ester blends, and the 15W40 and 25W60 Sin are just PAO (oligimer as they call it on the site) with ester for seal benfit. In the other ranges, they use Group 3, for the HPR range and Everyday Synthetic.

http://www.penrite.com.au/files/4VPCN3Z27M/135 RE-REFINED BASE STOCKS.pdf

Personally i have no issue with base oils like this, its better than how it came out of the ground. If its run through the same processes to clean it up, whats the issue....
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: tdi-rick
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
FWIW:

There is a difference between driving a car and DRIVING a car.

BuickGN and the OP (as well as myself) are doing the latter.....

Does anybody in this thread actually RACE a car with a 5w20 or 0w20 as well as the car being daily driven?


Well, I used to race a car with 0W-5, (I know, no such SAE grade, but it was like water) so does that count ??

Documented on here a few times. Formula Ford 1600 fifteen years ago. NEO 0W-5. 7000 RPM max revs. Only 30PSI oil pressure at 6500RPM. Needed to revise clearances and finishes for maximum life.


I ran Mobil 1 15W-50 in my Formula Ford with 60 psi. I always wondered what thinner oil would do, but needed to make sure the engine would last due to $$. It did a wonderful job running 260-280 degrees F for 30 min when the radiators got clogged (bad design).
 
I went engine dyno testing in '93 for three days.
Tested a few oils, heads, etc. and came away with a stack of HP/torque.
Back then BP Corse 30 (SAE30) was the standard, or Castrol R if you could afford it. One of the local Pro builders was using Castrol GP50, unique to Oz for bore wear control (thanks to his bore finish and ring type, but I wasn't going to point that out to him)

Neo 10w-30 and 0w-5 became my standard oils, 0w-5 below about 22*C ambient and the 10W-30 above, but bear in mind our races are like Europe, sprint affairs of 10-15 laps at the most, and absolutely brutal at that.
We only used 30-35psi at the most with a single scavenge stage Pace pump.
My engines would beat the Quicksilver ones that were run through the above mentioned engine builder, I really had the psychological edge on him too, particularly when he found out who was doing my heads (one of his mentors
LOL.gif
)

Here and in Europe, if you wanted to be anywhere on the grid you used the lightest oils you could find, and that went for the gearbox too.
I either used Neo 7wt or 75w-90 HD. Redlines light oils were popular too, although nobody ever admitted to what they were running.
When I was engine building for a friend, we would use Castrol SLX 0W-30 (the forerunner of GC) in customer engines with very good results, (unlike Dougs using the same oil in a Golf) or BP Visco 5000 and bearings and bores always looked excellent and they really gave little away in ultimate power/torque to what I had been running a few years before.
 
Originally Posted By: tdi-rick
I went engine dyno testing in '93 for three days.
Tested a few oils, heads, etc. and came away with a stack of HP/torque.
Back then BP Corse 30 (SAE30) was the standard, or Castrol R if you could afford it. One of the local Pro builders was using Castrol GP50, unique to Oz for bore wear control (thanks to his bore finish and ring type, but I wasn't going to point that out to him)

Neo 10w-30 and 0w-5 became my standard oils, 0w-5 below about 22*C ambient and the 10W-30 above, but bear in mind our races are like Europe, sprint affairs of 10-15 laps at the most, and absolutely brutal at that.
We only used 30-35psi at the most with a single scavenge stage Pace pump.
My engines would beat the Quicksilver ones that were run through the above mentioned engine builder, I really had the psychological edge on him too, particularly when he found out who was doing my heads (one of his mentors
LOL.gif
)

Here and in Europe, if you wanted to be anywhere on the grid you used the lightest oils you could find, and that went for the gearbox too.
I either used Neo 7wt or 75w-90 HD. Redlines light oils were popular too, although nobody ever admitted to what they were running.
When I was engine building for a friend, we would use Castrol SLX 0W-30 (the forerunner of GC) in customer engines with very good results, (unlike Dougs using the same oil in a Golf) or BP Visco 5000 and bearings and bores always looked excellent and they really gave little away in ultimate power/torque to what I had been running a few years before.


Fantastic information!

My cam grinder ran 0w20 in his one car. Engine was pulled due to a transmission issue, and the bearings still looked extremely good. This was a stock shortblock 302, stock oil pump and spun to 9,000RPM on occasion. Oil was M1.
 
I had to tighten bearing clearances up to under 1.5 thou, and changed the bore finish to better than 400 grit (Sunnen 600 stones) and finished with a plateau hone.

I believe, I was one of the first if not the first using plateau honing here. I gleaned some excellent info from one of the reps at one of the big machine tool manufacturers/resellers in the US that also supplied a lot of US race engine builders up to Nascar and they passed on some excellent info.
Turned out that their Oz importer had the hones on the shelf and didn't know what they were, or so they made out.

These changes eliminated the cavitation erosion I experienced using the 0W-5 oil and Vandervell bearings and ring and bore wear.
Rings were Sealed Power with very low tension oil rings. There was a lower tension oil ring but it was a special supplied only to Quicksilver and one or two other US builders.

We changed our bearings to a slightly tougher ACL bearing later. Note quite as soft in the overlay as the Vandervell, but more consistent and nicer finished.
My mate used the OE Ford chrome rings in his customer engines, but I preferred the Sealed Power rings. I didn't really like the ACl racing ring that most engine builders here used. Too soft (so bedded in very quickly) which created bore wear as the rings wore.
Both the Ford and Sealed Power rings worked fine.

I only started building my own stuff as I couldn't afford the pro builders anymore, they were delivering sub-standard engines unless you were a 'name' and as I was just starting out in cars without a rich Daddy I really did get 'seconds'
An engine I paid $4500 cash to be rebuilt had so much second hand [censored] in it it's a wonder it hadn't expired in my first season of racing. Flywheel bolts that were stretched over 1/3 their original length, three different sets of rings, a head with flogged out guides and valve heights all over the place, throttle shaft bores flogged, etc, etc.
It really looked like all the [censored] that had been sitting around the workshop was thrown on my engine and anything that was Ok on mine swapped.
This after I'd told the bloke do whatever needs doing to make it as good as possible......
smirk2.gif


I was lucky enough to be helped big time by an Australian Nascar and V8 Touring Car crew chief who showed me the basics of engine building in exchange for all my kart stuff for his young blokes.
He thought I had the makings of a racer, so fair trade I thought and I went from there till I got the dirts with it all a number of years later.
grin2.gif
 
Sounds like you have a great deal of experience with this.

So a question for you:

It sounds like you went to a great deal of effort to setup your engine to run that particular weight of oil.

In discussing engines with factory 40 and 60 weight recommendations (Porsche and BMW) would one not have to consider these same issues you encountered in terms of wear due to bore finish, ring tension and bearing material when switching these engines to a lighter grade?

Edit: to extrapolate:

What I am trying to get at here is that perhaps the "run lighter oil" argument is being oversimplified by its proponents.

And of course this brings us back to Doug's suggestion of running the lightest weight oil suitable for the prevailing ambient conditions as specified by the engine manufacturer.

And the deeper we delve into this, and the more information that surfaces (such as your experiences above) it really works to enforce this mantra.

If BMW designed an engine with a specific bore finish, ring compound, bearing materials and clearances to work the best with a 60-weight oil, then what affects on engine long-term durability are potentially being wrought upon its internals by running 0w20?

And, the fact that the wear may not show up via the testing methods employed by many doing these experiments (UOA's, as detailed in Doug's information) really makes me curious as to the ramifications.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Sounds like you have a great deal of experience with this.

So a question for you:


And, the fact that the wear may not show up via the testing methods employed by many doing these experiments (UOA's, as detailed in Doug's information) really makes me curious as to the ramifications.....


I agree.
What Doug has been saying for ages rings true with my experience.

Admittedly I was pushing the limits, I was after the best power/torque I could get as modifications are so limited in that class. You would sell your soul for the power I picked up, things are that tight, grid spots often separated by hundredths of a second.
Engines were pulled between 1000-1500km, purely as the crank needed regular crack testing thanks to an exposed flywheel, but if the bearings and bore looked ok, it'd be thrown back together. Re-ringing would occur at 5% leakdown.

Obviously oils have improved greatly from 15 years ago too, but the physics of film thickness, etc probably haven't, and the stuff I was using was AFAIK 100% di-ester base (polar) with an extremely robust add package for the time. Paul Baker/Neo was known for using an 'everything including the kitchen sink' approach to his oils. It didn't have to meet a price point, he was trying to make the best oils humanly possible and he really pushed the envelope with his viscosities and while I initially ran the low viscosity oil in an engine setup for xW-30's and 40's and enjoyed an advantage over the heavier oils, I had to change most everything on the running surfaces to combat the wear and erosion I was experiencing and it appeared to work.
We weren't using OE oil pumps either, dry sumps were the order of the day with gerotor style pressure and scavenge stages so volume wasn't an issue.
Interestingly the xW-30 oils worked well with the finer finishes and closer tolerances too.

Apparently most that experimented with the very light oils just put up with the increased wear, or went back to heavier oils for cost, but it wasn't something I ever really discussed outside of one other person. In motorsport, if you have an advantage you keep it tight.
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: sprintman
If we keep going down the thinner route at some point there must be a trade of when increased wear becomes apparent. At what thickness will that occur?


Thats what i would like to know.

What is the oil film strength of say xw20 compared to xw40 or xw30 oil and has anyone done a UOA to campare engine wear with thin oils?
 
Todays "thin" oils have little in common to oils of 10 or 15 years ago. Those oils did show additional wear compared to thicker oils in similar applications. Todays 20 grade oils generally show little or no shear thinning and in some cases less wear than heavier grade oils.

Also, when you talk about viscosity you must at the same time talk about oil temperatures. A 20 grade oil at 180 F has about the same viscosity as a 30 grade at 200 F and about the same viscosity of a 40 grade oil at 220 F and so on. If you race your BMW with sump temperatures of 290 F then it would be safe to use a 20 grade oil if the sump was 180 F.

Most BMW owners in the US probably never go above 80 MPH, ever. Why do these old ladies need a 60 grade oil?

aehaas
 
Originally Posted By: AEHaas
Todays "thin" oils have little in common to oils of 10 or 15 years ago. Those oils did show additional wear compared to thicker oils in similar applications. Todays 20 grade oils generally show little or no shear thinning and in some cases less wear than heavier grade oils.

Also, when you talk about viscosity you must at the same time talk about oil temperatures. A 20 grade oil at 180 F has about the same viscosity as a 30 grade at 200 F and about the same viscosity of a 40 grade oil at 220 F and so on. If you race your BMW with sump temperatures of 290 F then it would be safe to use a 20 grade oil if the sump was 180 F.

Most BMW owners in the US probably never go above 80 MPH, ever. Why do these old ladies need a 60 grade oil?

aehaas


Exactly. Which falls in line with your scenario, correct? IE, you do not race your cars?

But if we bring in high sump temperatures from extended track use (or we look at the logic of BMW, which of course includes extensive high speed usage on the Autobahn) then their reasoning becomes apparent.

I'm not saying running a lighter weight oil will cause issues. As my own example from my cam grinder proves; it may not. But that there is a method to the madness of these manufacturers recommending the oil grades they do. Whether the driving style of the person who owns the car will ever align with the reason for that recommendation....well......We don't know.

What I am interested in knowing is, like tdi-rick's examples provided, how are these engines being prepared in terms of bore finish, bearing material, clearances and the like due to the fact that they are factory spec'd for a 60-weight?

Perhaps Doug has some inside-information on this.

-Chris
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: CIRHS
Originally Posted By: sprintman
If we keep going down the thinner route at some point there must be a trade of when increased wear becomes apparent. At what thickness will that occur?


Thats what i would like to know.

What is the oil film strength of say xw20 compared to xw40 or xw30 oil and has anyone done a UOA to campare engine wear with thin oils?



Don't confuse film strength with film thickness.
Two very different things.

Even then, the very light stuff had a superior film strength, at least as measured in a Falex test, but it's ability to keep two moving metal surfaces apart depended greatly upon it's surface finish, clearance, oil volume, etc.
 
hi tdi rick

i used to buy castrol gp 50 in 5 gallon drums in auckland, nz in 1979

used it in my bonneville and commando

told it was too thick, went to valvoline 20w50

wore out the bonnie's exhaust cam

call me a thick kiwi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top