Recent Topics
New 5% RA discount code
by bullwinkle - 01/22/20 04:12 PM
17 Dodge Ram 6.7, 5K
by merdog - 01/22/20 02:16 PM
Mobile 1 in a Subaru Manual transaxle?
by someoldguy - 01/22/20 01:17 PM
Castrol and NASCAR
by kstanf150 - 01/22/20 01:14 PM
AMSoil Signature / AMSoil European - 5-40
by 335xiE92FBO - 01/22/20 12:06 PM
How happy are you in your profession ?
by Mr Nice - 01/22/20 11:52 AM
Npt fitting torque?
by motor_oil_madman - 01/22/20 11:47 AM
Tracing wires in walls
by Dave Sherman - 01/22/20 11:32 AM
WM Castrol HM magnatec 6 GALLON BOX $45
by GMguy84 - 01/22/20 11:30 AM
Steering Lubricant Suggestion
by lancerplayer - 01/22/20 11:08 AM
Neglected AW55-50 - Plan Of Attack?
by Bailes1992 - 01/22/20 09:14 AM
BMW caliper pins, no lube?
by ledslinger - 01/22/20 08:58 AM
Glock 44
by bradepb - 01/22/20 08:04 AM
Open up area in basement
by redhat - 01/22/20 07:42 AM
Briggs Intek Leaking Crankshaft Oil Seal
by UncleNorby - 01/22/20 06:26 AM
1ZZ-FE MR-2 (weekends and trackdays)
by geetar - 01/22/20 04:58 AM
Did Rotella Ever Have JASO MA Certification?
by BBDartCA - 01/22/20 12:49 AM
Newest Members
EricWestland, Brian200001, Phildrum, 335xiE92FBO, oldrover
70505 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
114 registered members (4WD, 2000ltdken, 1978elcamino, 390pi, 2strokeNorthstar, 28oz, 6 invisible), 2,770 guests, and 19 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics300,436
Posts5,175,764
Members70,505
Most Online4,538
Jan 20th, 2020
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Engine friction reduction trends #4830433 08/03/18 05:05 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,320
J
JAG Offline OP
OP Offline
J
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,320
The main points should be familiar to those of us who read oil papers, but Iím posting it because itís a good paper. Itís from 2016.

The statements below are not all in the paper. Some come from other sources.
Thinner oils push the lubricant regimes to the left on the Stribeck curve. Yep, itís still true...darn physics.
Friction modifiers help reduce mechanical friction when asperity contact occurs. Fuel economy benefits of thin oils are especially realized (compared to thicker oils) when friction modifiers are added because of the increased asperity contact caused by thin oils.
Near the top and bottom dead center piston positions are the problematic regions due to the low relative speeds there causing oil film thickness collapse. The piston rocking back and forth there makes it even worse for the film separating the piston skirts from cylinder walls. There, the shear rates are very low, so low-shear rate kinematic viscosity is the driver rather than the high shear rate like is used in the HTHS test.

The paper: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40544-016-0107-9.pdf

Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: JAG] #4830466 08/03/18 06:10 PM
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 3,614
Marco620 Offline
Offline
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 3,614
Interesting... Very interesting. So.. Keep using redline 0w20 in my car, right??


15' Civic 1.8 i-vtec 302,000 mi M1 AP 0w20 & LG Biotech, BP CVT Fluid,GUMOUT W/ PEA
Doberman Whisperer!
Doberman,Heckler & Koch & SONY Aficionado

Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: JAG] #4830506 08/03/18 06:58 PM
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 3,206
J
JLTD Offline
Offline
J
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 3,206
popcorn

(and also don't have time for the whole article right now)


"Let’s not pretend like 0w20 is anything but a CAFE required crutch to eek another 1/2MPG" - BLND1

Hers: 2018 Ford Flex AWD EB, 35k, dealer fill

His: 2015 4Runner 60k, SS 5w20/Amsoil

Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: Marco620] #4830515 08/03/18 07:03 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,995
B
bulwnkl Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted By: Marco620
Interesting... Very interesting. So.. Keep using redline 0w20 in my car, right??


Maybe, maybe not...
If this is an overriding or controlling issue:
Quote:
Near the top and bottom dead center piston positions are the problematic regions due to the low relative speeds there causing oil film thickness collapse. The piston rocking back and forth there makes it even worse for the film separating the piston skirts from cylinder walls. There, the shear rates are very low, so low-shear rate kinematic viscosity is the driver rather than the high shear rate like is used in the HTHS test.


then you'd want a fluid with a higher kinematic viscosity, but not really a higher dynamic (HTHS) viscosity. Or, in other words, kind of the opposite of what you get from Redline's fluids: A reasonably '[censored]' 10W30 rather than a Redline-type 0W20.

...but that's only _if_ that one quoted principle is overriding or controlling in terms of overall wear that leads to engine failure or replacement.


I use speech recognition frequently. Please excuse any consequent grammatical or typographical errors.
Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: JAG] #4830599 08/03/18 08:34 PM
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 940
O
Onetor Offline
Offline
O
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 940
What a paper to digest. I think I need to read it twice. I'm a newbie,,,,


N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L
Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: Onetor] #4830623 08/03/18 09:15 PM
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,628
C
CR94 Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted By: Onetor
What a paper to digest. I think I need to read it twice. I'm a newbie,,,,
Yeah. They throw in a little of everything---plus more than a few typos. Yes, I made it all the way through.


2011 Toyota Prius now at 108K
1981 Mazda GLC (323) retired at 606K
1972 Subaru DL retired at 190K
1954 Chevrolet retired at 121K
Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: JAG] #4837695 08/11/18 09:18 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,387
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,387
Originally Posted By: JAG
Near the top and bottom dead center piston positions are the problematic regions due to the low relative speeds there causing oil film thickness collapse. The piston rocking back and forth there makes it even worse for the film separating the piston skirts from cylinder walls. There, the shear rates are very low, so low-shear rate kinematic viscosity is the driver rather than the high shear rate like is used in the HTHS test.


These graphs were posted in another thread awhile ago - don't recall which thread or by who. Shows that ring wear is a function of oil temp, oil HTHS rating and engine RPM. Still shows that higher HTSH will reduce ring wear in certain operating conditions. Also, it's pretty typical that higher viscosity oils will also have higher HTHS ratings.

Another reason to use thicker oil IMO is to reduce ring wear based on these graphs ... especially if you're pushing the engine hard (load and RPM), and elevating the oil temperatures above what you'd see in normal street driving.





Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: ZeeOSix] #4888783 10/05/18 10:28 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 134
N
neo3 Offline
Offline
N
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix


These graphs were posted in another thread awhile ago - don't recall which thread or by who. Shows that ring wear is a function of oil temp, oil HTHS rating and engine RPM. Still shows that higher HTSH will reduce ring wear in certain operating conditions. Also, it's pretty typical that higher viscosity oils will also have higher HTHS ratings.

Another reason to use thicker oil IMO is to reduce ring wear based on these graphs ... especially if you're pushing the engine hard (load and RPM), and elevating the oil temperatures above what you'd see in normal street driving.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]


I'm not seeing the same conclusion from those graphs, especially the 2nd one that seems to show that an HTHS of 2.6 has the minimum average wear over the entire rpm range. That HTHS would be typical for a "thinner" oil (XW20) wouldn't it? (Also, they really need another data point in there around 2.9.) Maybe I should change my preference for using "thicker" oil (picked up from reading too much stuff on this site LOL). It would be useful to have a link or citation for the graphs.

Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: JAG] #4891367 10/08/18 06:50 PM
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,628
C
CR94 Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,628
^^ Agree with neo3. There are also odd inconsistencies in speed vs. wear in those plots. What is "h·piece" in the vertical axis? (I assume something related to run time or number of revolutions.)


2011 Toyota Prius now at 108K
1981 Mazda GLC (323) retired at 606K
1972 Subaru DL retired at 190K
1954 Chevrolet retired at 121K
Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: neo3] #4891462 10/08/18 08:36 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,387
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 22,387
Originally Posted by neo3
I'm not seeing the same conclusion from those graphs, especially the 2nd one that seems to show that an HTHS of 2.6 has the minimum average wear over the entire rpm range. That HTHS would be typical for a "thinner" oil (XW20) wouldn't it? (Also, they really need another data point in there around 2.9.) Maybe I should change my preference for using "thicker" oil (picked up from reading too much stuff on this site LOL). It would be useful to have a link or citation for the graphs.


The 2nd graph is showing that increased wear can occur for oils that are less than 2.6 HTHS when oil temperature gets elevated some. But it also says if you are using a 20 wt you really have no headroom, but are right at the verge of having more engine wear is the oil temps start to rise above "normal". Look how the wear rates all increase when you go a hair below 2.6. Personally, I don't want to always be operating on the edge of the wear cliff when pushing the engine hard. HTHS of 2.6 is probably fine for tootling around like grandma on the streets. grin2 Notice the wear is basically flat lined for the 2000 RPM case, regardless of the HTHS.

Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: JAG] #4891777 10/09/18 09:37 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,995
B
bulwnkl Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,995
Yes, those generalities do seem to be in there, but there also appears to be a very large amount of variation (scatter, really) such that those graphs are not adequate to give me a visual representation I can have confidence in.


I use speech recognition frequently. Please excuse any consequent grammatical or typographical errors.
Re: Engine friction reduction trends [Re: JAG] #4891993 10/09/18 02:16 PM
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,628
C
CR94 Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,628
^^ Yes. It's interesting that 2.6 mPa·s appears to protect better than 3.1 at most speeds---unless that's merely an artifact of the scatter.


2011 Toyota Prius now at 108K
1981 Mazda GLC (323) retired at 606K
1972 Subaru DL retired at 190K
1954 Chevrolet retired at 121K
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™