One Dodge running 5W20 rewrites all the engineering texts in history ?

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by StevieC
GM has had a long history of screw-ups and making their customers foot the bill. Both mentioned in the media, here and from personal experiences with my dad fixing their nightmares. They still can't seem to keep their fluids where they belong both from burning and leaking depending on the model so yes I will pick on them because they just don't seem to care and then when things get messy point their fingers at the customer or at the oil. And when customers turn away take money from the government because we can't let them fail because it would be dire for the economy. BAD BUSINESS all around.

Yes Toyota had rings problems and yes they didn't handle it well, and yes they had the sludge monsters but when you consider the volume of cars they sell and all the models of engines they have had it's small in comparison to the GM blunders of issues over the decades and now. Again no OE is perfect and will have it's issues but then there are patterns that emerge and GM has problem child written all over itself. Albeit they are much better than the junk they were turning out before.



When i get a V6 4 Runner in for head gaskets, Or a 4.6L/5.7L in for a starter.......I smile ear to ear! Toyota owners are WILL spend the money to PROVE their superiority!

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by Marco620
Feeling pretty good using redline and archoil. Might go to 0w30 once I get to 400k. Almost to 200k by Xmas and to the Moon by May 238,900 mi.


Brag about 400K when you achieve it!!

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by StevieC
GM has had a long history of screw-ups and making their customers foot the bill. Both mentioned in the media, here and from personal experiences with my dad fixing their nightmares. They still can't seem to keep their fluids where they belong both from burning and leaking depending on the model so yes I will pick on them because they just don't seem to care and then when things get messy point their fingers at the customer or at the oil. And when customers turn away take money from the government because we can't let them fail because it would be dire for the economy. BAD BUSINESS all around.

Yes Toyota had rings problems and yes they didn't handle it well, and yes they had the sludge monsters but when you consider the volume of cars they sell and all the models of engines they have had it's small in comparison to the GM blunders of issues over the decades and now. Again no OE is perfect and will have it's issues but then there are patterns that emerge and GM has problem child written all over itself. Albeit they are much better than the junk they were turning out before.



When i get a V6 4 Runner in for head gaskets, Or a 4.6L/5.7L in for a starter.......I smile ear to ear! Toyota owners are WILL spend the money to PROVE their superiority!




What the heck are you talking about? I clearly said Toyota wasn't perfect.

 

[JAG]

Originally Posted by nap
o
Originally Posted by JAG
nap, it's not a trick question. Assume we are comparing the two oils at the same rpm and load.

ZeeOSix, that table is great data and we need to keep sharing such things. I get the feeling that some don't understand the basics of lubrication, so asked the question to hopefully foster some learning about it. Starting with journal bearings is easiest so we start with that.


Ok I'll bite and post this link, it presents the stuff as charts so it's easier to digest:

http://www.substech.com/dokuwiki/do...ngs#effect_on_minimum_oil_film_thickness

That's good information too. That guy appears to have modeled the bearings and oil with quite a bit of fidelity, so the results can't be represented by a simple, easy-to-remember relationship. There are complicated high-fidelity ways of modeling bearings and there are simplified versions that get the answers in the ballpark. I think what we need on this forum are knowledge that can be remembered and easily applied. I should have made that more clear when I posed the question.

What I was hoping for is someone to note the simplified way of modeling minimum oil film thickness by using the top right equation in the picture below. It says that minimum oil film thickness is a function of the square root of viscosity, among other things. I used that equation and the assumption that the viscosity is dropped by 10%. Those other things that film thickness depends on would cancel out in this problem, so they aren't included in my starting equation. I did the math and came up with a 5.1% reduction in minimum oil thickness. Notice how the viscosity of the the reference oil cancels out in the percent difference equation. Hopefully I didn't screw it up like last time I did math related to BITOG stuff. Correct me if I made a mistake.

 

[OVERKILL]

JAG:

Thanks for that. Some of the equations I was looking at incorporated different curves relative to base oil selection, which is in-step with what nap was digging at regarding over simplification. This can get complicated

Also, found this handy calculator:
http://www.tribology-abc.com/calculators/c9_3.htm

Also, you get a free pass on the math. I haven't done anything meaningful math-wise since Calculus in Uni when I was doing Comp-Sci, and that was almost 20 years ago now.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Nickdfresh
Whose 0W-20 did they use? Because I'm pretty sure there is some data floating around here regarding "0W-20" in which the "experimenters" formulated their own "0W-20" since none actually existed when the test took place. No offense intended and I genuinely don't know if this is from that or not, but just saying....


Nope, wrong...
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/88b0/376d980ba98c10e1ea0188e5f245b87dcdb7.pdf

at 2002 it's relatively "fresh", provided byShell Research, and describes 0W20 as a "common grade" at the time.

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by clinebarger
Originally Posted by StevieC
GM has had a long history of screw-ups and making their customers foot the bill. Both mentioned in the media, here and from personal experiences with my dad fixing their nightmares. They still can't seem to keep their fluids where they belong both from burning and leaking depending on the model so yes I will pick on them because they just don't seem to care and then when things get messy point their fingers at the customer or at the oil. And when customers turn away take money from the government because we can't let them fail because it would be dire for the economy. BAD BUSINESS all around.

Yes Toyota had rings problems and yes they didn't handle it well, and yes they had the sludge monsters but when you consider the volume of cars they sell and all the models of engines they have had it's small in comparison to the GM blunders of issues over the decades and now. Again no OE is perfect and will have it's issues but then there are patterns that emerge and GM has problem child written all over itself. Albeit they are much better than the junk they were turning out before.



When i get a V6 4 Runner in for head gaskets, Or a 4.6L/5.7L in for a starter.......I smile ear to ear! Toyota owners are WILL spend the money to PROVE their superiority!




What the heck are you talking about? I clearly said Toyota wasn't perfect.


Toyota owners taking Extra sensitive care of their prized vehicles & spending a THOUSAND dollars to replace a starter......And talk TRASH about a GM product needing a THOUSAND dollar timing chain job because it was abused all it's life.

I SEE & HEAR it all the time!

I will avoid you from now on.....Please continue to post every other Youtube video you watch to this site like the cancer that you are!

 

[Shannow]

JAG,
I prefer to use the Sommerfeld bearing characteristic to help explain (top chart).

But heres a few others

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by clinebarger
Toyota owners taking Extra sensitive care of their prized vehicles & spending a THOUSAND dollars to replace a starter......And talk TRASH about a GM product needing a THOUSAND dollar timing chain job because it was abused all it's life.

I SEE & HEAR it all the time!

I will avoid you from now on.....Please continue to post every other Youtube video you watch to this site like the cancer that you are!

Yeah all the GM engines eating timing chains are because of neglect. Go live in your fake world. $1,000 starter, OK sure.

Furthermore It's my first Toyota and I have it less than 2 months so I would hardly make me out to be some fanboy or long time can do no wrong supporter. I mentioned here before I bought it because it fit my needs, the dealership was close to my house, I had a horrible experience with my Dodge, and they had one on the lot I could drive away in after the accident with the Journey because I needed a car right away for work.

If you don't like the YouTube video's don't watch them. I didn't know there was a policy against posting it for everyone else. I guess I missed that part of the rules for this forum.

As for being a Cancer, folks like you that can't engage in debate and have to resort to these type of posts are the real cancer here. But it's ok, you do what you need to feel like the big man.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Shannow
JAG,
I prefer to use the Sommerfeld bearing characteristic to help explain (top chart).

But heres a few others


The differences between the straight weights and multigrades is somewhat consistent with the differences between the different bases I observed in one of the papers I read.

 

[Linctex]

My 2008 F150 has 170,000 miles and uses no oil - not one drop.

It has had 5w-20 Pennzoil from the quicklube place for the first 110,000 miles of its life.

I don't "get" CAFE... my truck gets E X A C T L Y the same fuel economy on plain ol' 10W-40 Pennz yellow bottle (it is what's in there right now, only $8 a 5qt jug at AutoZone last year) as it gets on full synthetic Peak 0W-20 (also an AutoZone clearance item)

I have tried both - there is no change in MPG at all.

 

[StevieC]

I think because of your mild temperatures in the winter there is why. Here in Canada fuel economy can drop by 20-30% in the winter so every effort should be taken to keep that to a minimum for cost savings and for all that extra fuel going through the engine. Now whether a 20wt actually makes that much of a measurable difference when its sub 0 is questionable but the flow is a good thing.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
but the flow is a good thing.



Which flow is that and why is it beneficial ?

Why doesn't a 0W40 provide that...or a 5W40?

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by StevieC
but the flow is a good thing.



Which flow is that and why is it beneficial ?

Why doesn't a 0W40 provide that...or a 5W40?


0w20 is like water when really cold or at least the Amsoil stuff is, I have put it in the freezer already to see and it flows faster that the Amsoil 0w40 and the Amsoil 0w30 in comparison. All flow well but the 0w20 flows the best in reality.

 

[Shannow]

And how, when it's delivered to the engine by a positive displacement oil pump does a freezer slosh test equate to "flow".

And why is "flow" important ?

Limits of pumpability for a 0W are -35 to -40C (about the same in F)...0F is way into the pumpable range for all of them...

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
That's what I was getting at. I could care less what people try to use but to say that you should run a 30wt because a research paper says it might be optimal under conditions that didn't test every situation or a huge sample size is nonsense especially when most will junk the car long before that will be apparent even if it is the case.

I guess I don't consider any of my vehicles "disposable", and hence a valid reason to run a certain oil viscosity. And there have been plenty of tests done and documented over the years that show higher HTHS (which is generally obtained with higher viscosity oils) does give better MOFT and wear protection. That fact is hard to debunk with non-strawman arguments.

Anything over HTHS of 2.3 (typically 20 weights) was proven to have the same effect as something in the 3's (typically 30 weights).

As for longevity unless you are going for the million mile mark the benefit if it does exist won't be realized IMO.


I'm not going to run my stuff on the "ragged edge" of good enough, especially when I run them hard sometimes. Others can if they want, but based on all the data I've seen I want some wear protection headroom.


I agree. I also don't like words or terms like, adequate, ample, or it will rot out before the engine dies when it comes to discussing "thin oils". LOL

 

[4WD]

Never (in several decades) had a GM leak or consume oil … never …

 

[Gene K]

I have zero qualifications to be in this thread but it seems to me the real question is what viscosity an engine actually needs. Then the question is how we go about getting it. I fail to see how the fact that we achieve it with a 20 Grade with a cooler over a 40 Grade without would be detrimental to the engine. I would think the more consistent viscosity with the 20 Grade setup would be beneficial but what do I know.

If the manifacturer fails to provide adequate temperature control for the application that's an engineering failure not a lube failure.

JMO. That and $1.50 will get you a cheap cup of coffee.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

So here's something I find interesting ---

I have an engine from a 2001 F-150 5.4 (no factory oil cooler) in my 2001 F-350. I put on the oil cooler. The oil cap for the F150 engine has 5w-30, yet the oil cap for my F-350 has 5w-20 on it!

The sump capacity is 1/2 quart more on the F-150 engine that is now in there.

Did the oil cooler contribute to it? Mechanically, there shouldn't be anything different between the engine; they both have PI heads. Except for this engine originally having EGR on the drivers side exhaust manifold and intake.

 

[SatinSilver]

Originally Posted by 4WD

Never (in several decades) had a GM leak or consume oil … never …


How about the Ford and Dodge?

Originally Posted by 4WD
On 20's:
Tahoe,
Z71 PU,
Fusion Hybrid,
Charger Pentastar …