I doubt anyone could devise a truly accurate test to measure engine wear.
Benifits of AFE oils
- Thread starter tig1
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: car51
Originally Posted By: wemay
I have a feeling tig1 is...
All in good fun
Now that IS FUNNY
Rex is the man!
Originally Posted By: wemay
I have a feeling tig1 is...
All in good fun
Now that IS FUNNY
Rex is the man!
Originally Posted By: tig1
I have been using M1 0-20AFE for years and have found there are benefits to this oil.
https://mobiloil.com/en/article/car-main...rOilFuelEconomy
Check's in the mail.....
I have been using M1 0-20AFE for years and have found there are benefits to this oil.
https://mobiloil.com/en/article/car-main...rOilFuelEconomy
Check's in the mail.....
I have AFE 0w30 in the Buick. After my next oci I will post a uoa. Then I'll let you know how it is lol
1
Last edited:
I pegged Tillerson as an M1 "Annual Protection" guy.
Com'n guys. UOA does not mean anything...... lol
Originally Posted By: B320i
0w20 oil?
Sorry guys, but the only oil you should run in your car is 25w-70!
(
)
Yeah, OK!!!
Crock of B.S. Right there
0w20 oil?
Sorry guys, but the only oil you should run in your car is 25w-70!
(
Yeah, OK!!!
Crock of B.S. Right there
Ahh, the old "advertorials are science" thing again...
Originally Posted By: Mobil Advertorial
3. The oil pump
In the oil pump, energy loss occurs due to rotational energy consumed by pumping heavier viscosity oils, particularly during warm-up. That’s why we’ve seen the trend of lower viscosity oils, such as 0W-30 and 0W-20.
Each time this advertorial is bought up, that's one bunk "fact" that stands out like dog's cods...
the difference between 60 and 80psi in an average oil system is in the 10s of watts...turn off your headlights, and you'll nett far more fuel economy than the oil pump impact that these articles hang their hat on.
The ACTUAL reason (sorry Mobil) is the viscous friction in bearing areas (bearings, pistons, rings, and to an extent cams etc.)...but these are "additional friction" areas according to Mobil's advertorial.
Camshaft wear...additives.
I'd be interested in actual claims of performance difference between
http://www.mobil.com/english-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-1-5W30
and
http://www.mobil.com/english-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-1-0W30
KV40 61.7 vs 62.9 (AFE 0W30 is the bigger of these two "startup" numbers).
KV100 11 vas 10.9
HTHS 3.1 versus 3.0
I don't think that either of these would even have a watt difference in "oil pump friction"
edit in microtype...
Originally Posted By: mobiladvertorial
Based on 0.2-2.3 percent potential fuel economy improvement obtained by switching from higher viscosity oils to a 0W-20 or 0W-30 grade. Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside temperature, driving conditions and your current engine oil viscosity.
Originally Posted By: Mobil Advertorial
3. The oil pump
In the oil pump, energy loss occurs due to rotational energy consumed by pumping heavier viscosity oils, particularly during warm-up. That’s why we’ve seen the trend of lower viscosity oils, such as 0W-30 and 0W-20.
Each time this advertorial is bought up, that's one bunk "fact" that stands out like dog's cods...
the difference between 60 and 80psi in an average oil system is in the 10s of watts...turn off your headlights, and you'll nett far more fuel economy than the oil pump impact that these articles hang their hat on.
The ACTUAL reason (sorry Mobil) is the viscous friction in bearing areas (bearings, pistons, rings, and to an extent cams etc.)...but these are "additional friction" areas according to Mobil's advertorial.
Camshaft wear...additives.
I'd be interested in actual claims of performance difference between
http://www.mobil.com/english-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-1-5W30
and
http://www.mobil.com/english-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-1-0W30
KV40 61.7 vs 62.9 (AFE 0W30 is the bigger of these two "startup" numbers).
KV100 11 vas 10.9
HTHS 3.1 versus 3.0
I don't think that either of these would even have a watt difference in "oil pump friction"
edit in microtype...
Originally Posted By: mobiladvertorial
Based on 0.2-2.3 percent potential fuel economy improvement obtained by switching from higher viscosity oils to a 0W-20 or 0W-30 grade. Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside temperature, driving conditions and your current engine oil viscosity.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Ahh, the old "advertorials are science" thing again...
Originally Posted By: Mobil Advertorial
3. The oil pump
In the oil pump, energy loss occurs due to rotational energy consumed by pumping heavier viscosity oils, particularly during warm-up. That’s why we’ve seen the trend of lower viscosity oils, such as 0W-30 and 0W-20.
Each time this advertorial is bought up, that's one bunk "fact" that stands out like dog's cods...
the difference between 60 and 80psi in an average oil system is in the 10s of watts...turn off your headlights, and you'll nett far more fuel economy than the oil pump impact that these articles hang their hat on.
The ACTUAL reason (sorry Mobil) is the viscous friction in bearing areas (bearings, pistons, rings, and to an extent cams etc.)...but these are "additional friction" areas according to Mobil's advertorial.
Camshaft wear...additives.
I'd be interested in actual claims of performance difference between
http://www.mobil.com/english-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-1-5W30
and
http://www.mobil.com/english-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-1-0W30
KV40 61.7 vs 62.9 (AFE 0W30 is the bigger of these two "startup" numbers).
KV100 11 vas 10.9
HTHS 3.1 versus 3.0
I don't think that either of these would even have a watt difference in "oil pump friction"
edit in microtype...
Originally Posted By: mobiladvertorial
Based on 0.2-2.3 percent potential fuel economy improvement obtained by switching from higher viscosity oils to a 0W-20 or 0W-30 grade. Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside temperature, driving conditions and your current engine oil viscosity.
My actual MPG gain has been .5 to 1 compared to my Mpg when I first bought these vehicles using M1 5-30. The rest of your stuff is, well stuff to me. Sorry.
Ahh, the old "advertorials are science" thing again...
Originally Posted By: Mobil Advertorial
3. The oil pump
In the oil pump, energy loss occurs due to rotational energy consumed by pumping heavier viscosity oils, particularly during warm-up. That’s why we’ve seen the trend of lower viscosity oils, such as 0W-30 and 0W-20.
Each time this advertorial is bought up, that's one bunk "fact" that stands out like dog's cods...
the difference between 60 and 80psi in an average oil system is in the 10s of watts...turn off your headlights, and you'll nett far more fuel economy than the oil pump impact that these articles hang their hat on.
The ACTUAL reason (sorry Mobil) is the viscous friction in bearing areas (bearings, pistons, rings, and to an extent cams etc.)...but these are "additional friction" areas according to Mobil's advertorial.
Camshaft wear...additives.
I'd be interested in actual claims of performance difference between
http://www.mobil.com/english-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-1-5W30
and
http://www.mobil.com/english-US/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-1-0W30
KV40 61.7 vs 62.9 (AFE 0W30 is the bigger of these two "startup" numbers).
KV100 11 vas 10.9
HTHS 3.1 versus 3.0
I don't think that either of these would even have a watt difference in "oil pump friction"
edit in microtype...
Originally Posted By: mobiladvertorial
Based on 0.2-2.3 percent potential fuel economy improvement obtained by switching from higher viscosity oils to a 0W-20 or 0W-30 grade. Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside temperature, driving conditions and your current engine oil viscosity.
My actual MPG gain has been .5 to 1 compared to my Mpg when I first bought these vehicles using M1 5-30. The rest of your stuff is, well stuff to me. Sorry.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: car51
Yeah, OK!!!
Crock of B.S. Right there
Just the reaction I was after! 25w-70 does exist.
Whether you use it in your car, well, that is genuinely up to you.
Thanks as always to Shannow for giving real facts. The minuscule improvements in fuel economy probably aren't warranted for the average Mr. Joe Citizen, but over a full production run, would probably make a notable difference. Its been argued to the moon and back over protection; we should all know by now it isn't just the oil's thickness that counts in protection, its also the anti-wear protection and the HTHS (or is that directly related to viscosity?)
Yeah, OK!!!
Crock of B.S. Right there
Just the reaction I was after! 25w-70 does exist.
Whether you use it in your car, well, that is genuinely up to you.
Thanks as always to Shannow for giving real facts. The minuscule improvements in fuel economy probably aren't warranted for the average Mr. Joe Citizen, but over a full production run, would probably make a notable difference. Its been argued to the moon and back over protection; we should all know by now it isn't just the oil's thickness that counts in protection, its also the anti-wear protection and the HTHS (or is that directly related to viscosity?)
The small little gains are always kind of interesting, to be honest. I remember years ago, when DRLs became mandatory here, my dad didn't like the notion of the extra fuel used. Sure, it's small. He drove a big truck a lot of times he didn't need to, but hey, the lights burned extra fuel. At least now, they're trying to cut electrical use in the lighting. In the end, cars need to get lighter again.
Originally Posted By: Garak
I remember years ago, when DRLs became mandatory here, my dad didn't like the notion of the extra fuel used.
...
In the end, cars need to get lighter again.
.
I almost added a tidbit about "banning DRL to maximise fuel economy."
Completely agree cars have certainly gotten bigger. Compare the original economy estimates (and the figures reported on various forums) for the Toyota Camry Gen 1. Economy went progressively downhill into the 2000s.
I'm noticing that smaller cars are getting bigger, and bigger cars are getting smaller. For example, the Toyota Rav4 used to be a little econo 4WD buzz-box. Its still a buzz-box, but more into that "Small SUV" segment. Similarly, people will remember Range Rover's being behemoths, these days, they're no bigger than a Rav4.
I remember years ago, when DRLs became mandatory here, my dad didn't like the notion of the extra fuel used.
...
In the end, cars need to get lighter again.
.
I almost added a tidbit about "banning DRL to maximise fuel economy."
Completely agree cars have certainly gotten bigger. Compare the original economy estimates (and the figures reported on various forums) for the Toyota Camry Gen 1. Economy went progressively downhill into the 2000s.
I'm noticing that smaller cars are getting bigger, and bigger cars are getting smaller. For example, the Toyota Rav4 used to be a little econo 4WD buzz-box. Its still a buzz-box, but more into that "Small SUV" segment. Similarly, people will remember Range Rover's being behemoths, these days, they're no bigger than a Rav4.
Just look at the VW Golf going to it's various iterations...
Excerpts from wikipedia
Quote:
In May 1974,[4] Volkswagen presented the first-generation Golf as a modern front-wheel-drive, long-range replacement for the Volkswagen Beetle.
September 1983 saw the introduction of the second-generation Golf (Mk2) that grew slightly in terms of wheelbase, exterior and interior dimensions, while retaining, in a more rounded form, the Mk1's overall look.
The third-generation Golf (Mk3) made its home-market début in August 1991 and again grew slightly in comparison with its immediate predecessor, while its wheelbase remained unchanged.
--No mention about the MkIII to MkVI sizes but...
The Golf VII, Typ 5G[16] uses the new MQB platform, shared with the third-generation Audi A3, SEAT León and Škoda Octavia. It is slightly larger than the Mk6 while managing to be approximately 100 kg lighter, depending on the engine choice
Excerpts from wikipedia
Quote:
In May 1974,[4] Volkswagen presented the first-generation Golf as a modern front-wheel-drive, long-range replacement for the Volkswagen Beetle.
September 1983 saw the introduction of the second-generation Golf (Mk2) that grew slightly in terms of wheelbase, exterior and interior dimensions, while retaining, in a more rounded form, the Mk1's overall look.
The third-generation Golf (Mk3) made its home-market début in August 1991 and again grew slightly in comparison with its immediate predecessor, while its wheelbase remained unchanged.
--No mention about the MkIII to MkVI sizes but...
The Golf VII, Typ 5G[16] uses the new MQB platform, shared with the third-generation Audi A3, SEAT León and Škoda Octavia. It is slightly larger than the Mk6 while managing to be approximately 100 kg lighter, depending on the engine choice
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: B320i
I almost added a tidbit about "banning DRL to maximise fuel economy."
I wonder how much fuel was "wasted" in this respect until all vehicles have something like LED DRLs.
And yes, vehicle sizing is so strange. North America really needs to revisit the notion of a city vehicle, with much, much reduced weight. Heck, the licensing provisions are almost ready made in this province with some commercial vehicles. Something like a Smart is almost a city vehicle, but they can do better than that, and more choice would be nice.
The F-150 I had when the G37 was getting the accident ironed out was good on fuel, all things considered. But, if it wasn't almost as big as my dad's last F-250, I bet it would have done much better yet. What I'd like to see is EPA exempt trucks again, but the definition of "truck" includes only vinyl bench seats, rubber floors, and crank windows, but that's another topic.
I almost added a tidbit about "banning DRL to maximise fuel economy."
I wonder how much fuel was "wasted" in this respect until all vehicles have something like LED DRLs.
And yes, vehicle sizing is so strange. North America really needs to revisit the notion of a city vehicle, with much, much reduced weight. Heck, the licensing provisions are almost ready made in this province with some commercial vehicles. Something like a Smart is almost a city vehicle, but they can do better than that, and more choice would be nice.
The F-150 I had when the G37 was getting the accident ironed out was good on fuel, all things considered. But, if it wasn't almost as big as my dad's last F-250, I bet it would have done much better yet. What I'd like to see is EPA exempt trucks again, but the definition of "truck" includes only vinyl bench seats, rubber floors, and crank windows, but that's another topic.
Oil pump 4gpm, 65% efficient, and assume that the lower viscosity oil drops 20psi.
Power differential between 60 and 80psi equals 50 watts.
50 watts = 20ml/hour to feed the increase in oil pressure with viscosity.
Note that CAFE only allows an OEM to claim 0.5% F.E. improvement using 20s, but acknowledges that gains up to and over 1% have been seen.
Power differential between 60 and 80psi equals 50 watts.
50 watts = 20ml/hour to feed the increase in oil pressure with viscosity.
Note that CAFE only allows an OEM to claim 0.5% F.E. improvement using 20s, but acknowledges that gains up to and over 1% have been seen.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
