Recent Topics
Permanent gloves for changing oil?
by paulri. 11/13/18 11:37 PM
Burnt Tundra
by Y_K. 11/13/18 11:00 PM
Unheated garage question
by timsidtoolmantay. 11/13/18 10:48 PM
Car tool kit
by Leo99. 11/13/18 09:21 PM
PRANG C-130 crash ruled pilot error
by tom slick. 11/13/18 09:02 PM
2 oil changes per filter
by ragtoplvr. 11/13/18 08:47 PM
Mazda 3 vs Toyota Matrix
by cb450sc. 11/13/18 08:42 PM
Mobil 1 15-50
by Larrymcc. 11/13/18 08:40 PM
New computer or upgrade SSD?
by Leo99. 11/13/18 07:48 PM
0w20 visc > 5w20, but what about shear?
by Silver. 11/13/18 07:08 PM
Switch From Fram Ultra To OEM ?
by ChrisD46. 11/13/18 06:57 PM
New Tires for the Escape
by MParr. 11/13/18 06:11 PM
new tires pick up more nails than old ones?
by motor_oil_madman. 11/13/18 04:59 PM
Rotella T6 5w40, 3750km OCI, 2010 STI
by mcwilly. 11/13/18 04:51 PM
Is there a high temp cut out for a home heater?
by motor_oil_madman. 11/13/18 04:41 PM
Very Old Obsolete Fluorescent Fixture
by George7941. 11/13/18 03:12 PM
Newest Members
OILisGOD, timsidtoolmantay, Jason73350, Traffic242, CyclingFit
66434 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
22 registered members (dishdude, anndel, Black_Thunder, Chunchula, E365, FordCapriDriver), 861 guests, and 33 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics293,456
Posts4,898,848
Members66,434
Most Online2,553
Oct 27th, 2018
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 16 1 2 16
Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones #4868294
09/14/18 03:56 AM
09/14/18 03:56 AM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
wemay Offline OP
wemay  Offline OP
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
This is not meant as an open invitation to read about your preferences, anecdotes and hatred for CAFE. 👍

We know that lower viscosity oils offer better fuel mileage, and as a cost, less protection. Both to varying degrees and possibly at insignificant levels where an xw20 vs xw30 is concerned.

But since the march towards even lower viscosity is the industry trend, will the chemistry of these oils ever match the physical properties of the thicker oils where wear is considered? Are we there yet? Is it even possible? Has reliance on antiwear tech reached that point?

Last edited by wemay; 09/14/18 03:58 AM.

18 Sportage LX: STP S2808ML
13 SFS 2.0T: FRAM XG9688
For the foreseeable future (👍AAP sale):
PP, PPHM and MSS 10w30
Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868297
09/14/18 04:19 AM
09/14/18 04:19 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,358
'Stralia
Shannow Offline
Shannow  Offline
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,358
'Stralia
This post is not to be construed as "buggywhipping", nor an open invitation to refer to papers older than last Tuesday as out of date, or general hatred for engineering principals that have held true for centuries.

Genuine hydrodynamic lubrication was traditionally referred to as the "zero wear" regime, where the parts were separated, could not touch, and therefore didn't wear...

The Stribeck curve showed a rapid friction increase and wear when the mixed boundary regime was reached, but was managed in the early days with the "oiliness" of things like tallow, whale oil, castor oil and the like, as opposed to the "dry" mineral oils of the day...when minerals were adopted, these were the additives of the day.

Chemistry, in the forms of additives changed that wear markedly for the better...for example steam cylinders

Those regimes were "controlled" wear, as opposed to "zero wear"...i.e. there's contact being made, and wear is controlled through chemistry (additives).

As you well know in asking the question, the Stribeck curve is being pushed continually to the left, and it's not for improved wear protection. The reduction in life may well be "insignificant", and as I've repeatedly stated, if the change means that the owner still throws out the car with 20, 30, 100,000 miles left on the engine, the tradeoff for economy is worth it.

Obviously, no chemistry mechanism for controlling wear is as effective as "keeping them separated", so not sure on exactly why you are asking the question that you are asking, while imposing on it the controls with respect to answering that you are stating.

As always, what will be drawn out of this is dislike for what I'm saying because it feels better if it wasn't true, and thus the apparent "hate", of the CAFE "conspiracy"

Question...why is "hate" the buzzword on BITOG for the last few years for disagreeing with a position ? (even a wrong one)???

Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868309
09/14/18 05:13 AM
09/14/18 05:13 AM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
wemay Offline OP
wemay  Offline OP
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
Shannow, the reason i prefaced this thread the way i did is because these threads always devolve into a dig in your heals, extreme posturing by both sides. With that, the "hatred" for CAFE comes out. By the mere nature of my thread acknowledging that thicker means better wear protection, the war of sides would come to be...yet again.

I don't direct my usage of the word "hate" to you, JAG, Sonofjoe, Molakule, Garak or anyone else who offers quantitative information. But there are those (on both sides of this argument) who see threads like this as an open invitation. Your inference that by me questioning the use of of "outdated" studies means it isnt to be considered is misdirected. Things change in science all the time. A novice like me is just interested if those conclusions still hold true. In a text format, i can understand the confusion, but it was always from the point of growing my knowledge, not questioning anyones genuineness.

Now, back to my original question, thanks for the response. So you don't see additive chemistry ever being able to match the natural abilities of boundary lubrication. That's what i was interested in finding out from you and the others, plus a few more people, i mentioned.


18 Sportage LX: STP S2808ML
13 SFS 2.0T: FRAM XG9688
For the foreseeable future (👍AAP sale):
PP, PPHM and MSS 10w30
Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868311
09/14/18 05:18 AM
09/14/18 05:18 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,358
'Stralia
Shannow Offline
Shannow  Offline
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,358
'Stralia
Title, and the opening line were clickbait.

Re the last line, it's hydrodynamic.

Clickbait...

Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868315
09/14/18 05:24 AM
09/14/18 05:24 AM
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 10,593
Indiana
dlundblad Offline
dlundblad  Offline
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 10,593
Indiana
Originally Posted by wemay
This is not meant as an open invitation to read about your preferences, anecdotes and hatred for CAFE. 👍

We know that lower viscosity oils offer better fuel mileage, and as a cost, less protection. Both to varying degrees and possibly at insignificant levels where an xw20 vs xw30 is concerned.

But since the march towards even lower viscosity is the industry trend, will the chemistry of these oils ever match the physical properties of the thicker oils where wear is considered? Are we there yet? Is it even possible? Has reliance on antiwear tech reached that point?


I realize you said you don't want to hear about CAFE hatred, but it is the reason for the "industrial trend" to lower viscosity.

Back to your original question, I say no. Viscosity is measured in cSt. The bookend weights like 0w20 and 20w50 will always have their numbers at 100*C. Everything else has to fall between that.

If by physical properties, you mean wear reduction, well that's just another thin vs. thick debate. I have no problem with one or the other, but Toyota (as many here know) for example recommends upping the oil if the vehicle is used for towing. This is cold hard fact that can't be debated.

Last edited by dlundblad; 09/14/18 05:26 AM.

03 Jeep WJ 4.0 200k Castrol Edge 10w40 HM Fram XG16
02 Volvo S60 2.4T 177k M1 0w40 Mahle OX149D
97 Chevy Blazer 4.3 149k Rotella T5 10w30 Supertech ST3980

Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868322
09/14/18 05:47 AM
09/14/18 05:47 AM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
wemay Offline OP
wemay  Offline OP
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
And i can accept that dlunblad, thanks. What i didn't want was name calling by those that jump on coattails of the professionals who confirm their biases through evidence based posts by said pros.Not just by the thick guys, but the thin guys to. I probably should have made that more clear. It wasnt clickbait. Yes, Shannow...hydrodynamic.

Last edited by wemay; 09/14/18 05:50 AM.

18 Sportage LX: STP S2808ML
13 SFS 2.0T: FRAM XG9688
For the foreseeable future (👍AAP sale):
PP, PPHM and MSS 10w30
Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868384
09/14/18 07:22 AM
09/14/18 07:22 AM
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,189
Europe
SonofJoe Offline
SonofJoe  Offline
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,189
Europe
A couple of comments for what they're worth...

I've been away for a few years now (so things might have conceivably changed) but my considered view is that genuine engine oil additive development essentially stopped about three decades ago! VIIs, ZDDP, Moly, overbased detergents, ashless dispersants, all the main antioxidants, the few FMs that have attained commericial status; they've all been around for donkeys years. Couple that with the perception that the ICE might be a dead duck by 2040 & I doubt whether the 'catch-up' implied in the question will ever happen.

Yes, oils have changed in sorts of respects but many of the changes (low viscosity oils, low SAPS oil, high mileage oils, phosphorus volatility, etc) have come about by a combination of improved base oils and a reshuffling of existing chemistries. If there is something new that stands out on the can, you have to ask yourself whether that 'thing'
is there because of genuine, inherent utility or just because it sounds good (I am a cynic for good reason!).

Oh, and I would strongly advise people not to believe everything they read about new super-whizzo additives in papers they pull off Google. That someone says they've got brilliant wear results with a graphene-based FM usually means diddly squat in terms of use in commercial oils where cost is the overriding developmental consideration & no-harm/chemical registration can quickly kill off even the most promising new additives.


Last edited by SonofJoe; 09/14/18 07:23 AM.
Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: SonofJoe] #4868388
09/14/18 07:30 AM
09/14/18 07:30 AM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
wemay Offline OP
wemay  Offline OP
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
A couple of comments for what they're worth...

I've been away for a few years now (so things might have conceivably changed) but my considered view is that genuine engine oil additive development essentially stopped about three decades ago! VIIs, ZDDP, Moly, overbased detergents, ashless dispersants, all the main antioxidants, the few FMs that have attained commericial status; they've all been around for donkeys years. Couple that with the perception that the ICE might be a dead duck by 2040 & I doubt whether the 'catch-up' implied in the question will ever happen.

Yes, oils have changed in sorts of respects but many of the changes (low viscosity oils, low SAPS oil, high mileage oils, phosphorus volatility, etc) have come about by a combination of improved base oils and a reshuffling of existing chemistries. If there is something new that stands out on the can, you have to ask yourself whether that 'thing'
is there because of genuine, inherent utility or just because it sounds good (I am a cynic for good reason!).

Oh, and I would strongly advise people not to believe everything they read about new super-whizzo additives in papers they pull off Google. That someone says they've got brilliant wear results with a graphene-based FM usually means diddly squat in terms of use in commercial oils where cost is the overriding developmental consideration & no-harm/chemical registration can quickly kill off even the most promising new additives.



That makes all the difference in the world. I was always under the impression that newer, better additive technology or, the very least, more advanced ways to synthesize those additives meant a constant march forward.


18 Sportage LX: STP S2808ML
13 SFS 2.0T: FRAM XG9688
For the foreseeable future (👍AAP sale):
PP, PPHM and MSS 10w30
Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868406
09/14/18 07:46 AM
09/14/18 07:46 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,831
NJ
buster Offline
buster  Offline
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,831
NJ
I would argue though that the lower SA oils, which are using less ZDP/Ca etc., are able to meet and exceed the most demanding specifications tested for. In the last 20 years, the main changes I've seen with oils are - move to better base stocks (most oils are synthetic now or blends) and a reduction in ZDP and Ca. But they are meeting the same and sometimes more stringent tests that have always existed so I fail to see the problems.

Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868433
09/14/18 08:20 AM
09/14/18 08:20 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,831
NJ
buster Offline
buster  Offline
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,831
NJ
I don't see what the deficiences are in modern oils in a general sense when engines are more reliable than ever. Engines are also probably made better?? It's the rest of the car that falls apart. Lubrication failures are so rare these days, even with longer OCI's.

Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: SonofJoe] #4868444
09/14/18 08:33 AM
09/14/18 08:33 AM
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 777
WA
Brigadier Offline
Brigadier  Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 777
WA
Originally Posted by SonofJoe
A couple of comments for what they're worth...

I've been away for a few years now (so things might have conceivably changed) but my considered view is that genuine engine oil additive development essentially stopped about three decades ago! VIIs, ZDDP, Moly, overbased detergents, ashless dispersants, all the main antioxidants, the few FMs that have attained commericial status; they've all been around for donkeys years. Couple that with the perception that the ICE might be a dead duck by 2040 & I doubt whether the 'catch-up' implied in the question will ever happen.

Yes, oils have changed in sorts of respects but many of the changes (low viscosity oils, low SAPS oil, high mileage oils, phosphorus volatility, etc) have come about by a combination of improved base oils and a reshuffling of existing chemistries. If there is something new that stands out on the can, you have to ask yourself whether that 'thing'
is there because of genuine, inherent utility or just because it sounds good (I am a cynic for good reason!).

Oh, and I would strongly advise people not to believe everything they read about new super-whizzo additives in papers they pull off Google. That someone says they've got brilliant wear results with a graphene-based FM usually means diddly squat in terms of use in commercial oils where cost is the overriding developmental consideration & no-harm/chemical registration can quickly kill off even the most promising new additives.




Isn't using Titanium as an additive new?


2017 Hyundai Santa Fe SE, 3.3L, AWD, QSUD 5w30, OEM filter, LiquiMoly MoS2, E-0 92 octane

https://www.pure-gas.org/ << Wake up your engine!!

Where the stars and stripes and the eagle fly
Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868468
09/14/18 08:55 AM
09/14/18 08:55 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,386
Iowegia - USA
MolaKule Offline
MolaKule  Offline
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,386
Iowegia - USA
Originally Posted by wemay


...But since the march towards even lower viscosity is the industry trend, will the chemistry of these oils ever match the physical properties of the thicker oils where wear is considered? Are we there yet? Is it even possible? Has reliance on antiwear tech reached that point?


I would say yes, but with this caveat: The lower viscosity oils are offering comparable wear protection but at a slightly higher cost because the new AW and FM component chemistry in the additive package comes at a higher cost.

I would like to see a survey from the SAE or other engineering group that shows the effects of lower viscosity oils on engine wear and how much.

I.e., are engine bearings, rings, and camshafts being replaced at a frantic pace that can be traced to lower viscosity oils being the cause of failure and or replacement?

Last edited by MolaKule; 09/14/18 08:59 AM.

Why are oil filters placed over chassis rails and cross members?
Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868471
09/14/18 08:58 AM
09/14/18 08:58 AM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
wemay Offline OP
wemay  Offline OP
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
Brigadier,


SCIENCE 2.0

Titanium: A Greener Antiwear Additive For Engine Oil?
By News Staff | July 22nd 2008 09:47 PM


https://www.science20.com/news_releases/titanium_a_greener_antiwear_additive_for_engine_oil

Last edited by wemay; 09/14/18 08:58 AM.

18 Sportage LX: STP S2808ML
13 SFS 2.0T: FRAM XG9688
For the foreseeable future (👍AAP sale):
PP, PPHM and MSS 10w30
Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: MolaKule] #4868474
09/14/18 09:01 AM
09/14/18 09:01 AM
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
wemay Offline OP
wemay  Offline OP
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,688
Kendall, FL
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by wemay


...But since the march towards even lower viscosity is the industry trend, will the chemistry of these oils ever match the physical properties of the thicker oils where wear is considered? Are we there yet? Is it even possible? Has reliance on antiwear tech reached that point?


I would say yes, but with this caveat: The lower viscosity oils are offering comparable wear protection but at a slightly higher cost because the new AW and FM component chemistry in the additive package comes at a higher cost.

I would like to see a survey from the SAE or other engineering group that shows the effects of lower viscosity oils on engine wear and how much.

I.e., are engine bearings, rings, and camshafts being replaced at a frantic pace that can be traced to lower viscosity oils being the cause of failure and or replacement?


Or maybe not replaced but dealing with consumption and dilution which isn't bad enough to prompt the consumer to take the vehicle in?


18 Sportage LX: STP S2808ML
13 SFS 2.0T: FRAM XG9688
For the foreseeable future (👍AAP sale):
PP, PPHM and MSS 10w30
Re: Will the chemistry of low visc oils catch up to physical properties of thicker ones [Re: wemay] #4868503
09/14/18 09:33 AM
09/14/18 09:33 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,968
Texas
WyrTwister Offline
WyrTwister  Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,968
Texas
Here is a question based on a guess .

I am guessing recent car engines are built on tighter tolerances ( and possibly better materials ) than those of the 60's . Perhaps lubercants are better too .

If the tolerances are tighter , would thinner lubricants be needed / indicated ?


Wyr
God bless
Page 1 of 16 1 2 16

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