Who runs a 20wt here?

[fdcg27]

Wow!
The OP starts a thread about who's running a twenty grade oil and it's off to the races.
The OP did make a number of spurious assertions about oil grades and how they differ in use, but his point that a twenty grade will take a vehicle to its natural 200K+ life is probably well taken.
Why so many people who have better technical knowledge found it necessary to drag this thread out to nineteen pages I cannot understand.
Shame on the OP for having made many assertions not grounded in fact, but shame on everyone else for having answered every one of the OP's posts in this thread.
Some of the OP's posts were so obviously fanciful as to require no response, or maybe a simple LOL! from a single member.
I think that most of us understand the trade-offs between HTHS, wear and fuel economy. That these trade-offs exist is inarguable and there really isn't any need to respond beyond that.
I think that most of us also understand that a typical engine in typical use will do just fine on any number of grades.
Heck, we even had a Floridian plastic surgeon here who ran the Italian exotics he was successful enough in his practice to afford on twenty grade oils, which were fine in those engines given the way in which he used the cars.

 

[RazorsEdge]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Wow!
The OP starts a thread about who's running a twenty grade oil and it's off to the races.
The OP did make a number of spurious assertions about oil grades and how they differ in use, but his point that a twenty grade will take a vehicle to its natural 200K+ life is probably well taken.
Why so many people who have better technical knowledge found it necessary to drag this thread out to nineteen pages I cannot understand.
Shame on the OP for having made many assertions not grounded in fact, but shame on everyone else for having answered every one of the OP's posts in this thread.
Some of the OP's posts were so obviously fanciful as to require no response, or maybe a simple LOL! from a single member.
I think that most of us understand the trade-offs between HTHS, wear and fuel economy. That these trade-offs exist is inarguable and there really isn't any need to respond beyond that.
I think that most of us also understand that a typical engine in typical use will do just fine on any number of grades.
Heck, we even had a Floridian plastic surgeon here who ran the Italian exotics he was successful enough in his practice to afford on twenty grade oils, which were fine in those engines given the way in which he used the cars.

Yup 19 pages for what is beyond me,some take this abit too far IMO.

 

[Garak]

Sometimes, though, if shouldn't ask a question if one isn't going to like the answer.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Garak
Sometimes, though, if shouldn't ask a question if one isn't going to like the answer.

It wasn't that I didn't LIKE the answer, it was that I didn't agree with it based on the information provided and I explained why that was. There is a difference.

 

[Shannow]

.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by StevieC
It wasn't that I didn't LIKE the answer, it was that I didn't agree with it based on the information provided and I explained why that was. There is a difference.

I worded that inelegantly. I didn't mean that you didn't like the "specific answer," or mean "you" specifically, either. I mean when the answer gets too technical and drawn out over multiple pages. That's what some of us are here for, after all. If we're not picking nits, we're not happy, despite that it doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

 

[StevieC]

There is a culture here of folks not wanting to "allow" others to think differently because these same people can't fathom the idea that they might not have the full picture. It existed 10 years ago when I became a member and it exists now. It's a bit hypocritical as well because back then people were beating up people on here for not using 20w50, or for using M1 which caused higher iron in UOA's, or Fram filters. And today folks are fine with 30wt's but not 20wt's, folks are fine with M1 and it's a go-to oil for a lot of members, and then you have the Fram Ultra filters which god forbid anyone says anything bad about. So I guess in another decade there 20's will be fine and 16's or 12's or 5's will be the new evil if we aren't all electric by then.

Did those papers have valid findings? YES they did. Did it warrant further investigation? YES it does. Why? Because it didn't test every variable with every engine available in the market today along with every oil an add-pack today. Does it mean it can be used to blanket all cases that a thicker oil must be used to ensure protection? IMO NO it doesn't. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it without being beaten to death in the streets because I'm basing my opinion on what I see in the UOA's section, peoples first hand experiences without massive failures. The decade long usage of 20wt oils in a plethora of vehicles in multiple countries on this continent without ALL THE OE's back pedding on ALL THE 20wt spec'ing because there were problems. Furthermore I explained that surely if 20wt's were so bad we would see 100's of ppm more wear metals in UOA's compared to 30wt's for the metals in the observable range because surely increased wear/tear wouldn't discriminate and not also show up in the observable range of UOA's.

Anyway. WHATEVER, in 10 years when the Highlander is no longer here because I drive so many miles a year I promise to update everyone on whatever day it dies with an odometer picture of what was achieved on the 20wt destructive oil I ran its whole life. It will also prove what a shady company Amsoil is at the same time for the 2nd time as my Santa Fe doesn't seem to be enough. *Sticks tongue out*

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by Garak
Sometimes, though, if shouldn't ask a question if one isn't going to like the answer.

Ain't that the truth..

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Did those papers have valid findings? YES they did. Did it warrant further investigation? YES it does. Why? Because it didn't test every variable with every engine available in the market today along with every oil an add-pack today. Does it mean it can be used to blanket all cases that a thicker oil must be used to ensure protection? IMO NO it doesn't. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it without being beaten to death in the streets because I'm basing my opinion on what I see in the UOA's section, peoples first hand experiences without massive failures. The decade long usage of 20wt oils in a plethora of vehicles in multiple countries on this continent without ALL THE OE's back pedding on ALL THE 20wt spec'ing because there were problems. Furthermore I explained that surely if 20wt's were so bad we would see 100's of ppm more wear metals in UOA's compared to 30wt's for the metals in the observable range because surely increased wear/tear wouldn't discriminate and not also show up in the observable range of UOA's.

Myself, I'm not just looking at the massive failures, or even fine tuning every bit of wear. What oils might help prevent consumption down the road? What might help deposits in engines that are prone? Are ultrahigh VI oils a problem? I really despise oil consumption, so if there's something I can do to reduce the chances, I'm all for it. I also don't like to spend a lot. For me, my choices also have to balance two other things (setting aside what was originally specified for the engine in the first place). I have a horrible winter climate. So, while I may have some concern over ultrahigh VI oils, it would obviously be a lot of trouble to switch to a monograde. I also like to run the same oil year round, so, again, I have to make a choice that's going to work in that way.

Clearly, I'm not going to be running an ordinary monograde year round (well, maybe an Amsoil 10w-30 that has no VIIs, with a little bit of judicious behaviour on my part could work), nor am I going to be running for the highest VI OEM 20 I can find. My view is that the 20 grades certainly can work. I'm just not terribly enamoured with the ultrahigh VI OEM offerings that some here gush over. Now, I do have to admit that the Canadian dealer price on TGMO is pretty outstanding and it would be hard to ignore that if I were using a 0w-20.

 

[StevieC]

I would use the TGMO and get the oil changes done at the dealer but the Toyota filters aren't the best for efficiency and that I'm picky about, and there is a ton of Molly in the oil which given their previous ring sludging issues I don't know if I would be comfortable with as an "In-Case", no proof there. Plus Amsoil has been really good to me in my last 2 vehicles so I just don't see the need to change.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by StevieC

Did those papers have valid findings? YES they did. Did it warrant further investigation? YES it does. Why? Because it didn't test every variable with every engine available in the market today along with every oil an add-pack today. Does it mean it can be used to blanket all cases that a thicker oil must be used to ensure protection? IMO NO it doesn't.


The studies show that higher viscosity gives more MOFT, which equates to more parts separation. That's a pretty basic fact that holds true for all engines - doesn't have to be tested in every engine in the world to see the correlation. No amount of straw can change that.

Nobody has said thicker oil MUST be used, they said it provides more assurance that there is some headroom in the protection. So depending on the use conditions, a thicker oil certainly can provide more protection and less engine wear. It's a pretty simple and logical correlation.

 

[StevieC]

I never argued the MOFT. I argued that it wasn't necessary in the vast majority of engines running under normal circumstances. I event stated that thicker oil has its place.

 

[PimTac]

"The studies show that higher viscosity gives more MOFT, which equates to more parts separation. That's a pretty basic fact that holds true for all engines."



Speaking as a non-expert, isn't there a limit as to how much parts can separate?

Also, wouldn't this be more of a density equation of the film between parts versus the measurement of separation?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by StevieC
I never argued the MOFT. I argued that it wasn't necessary in the vast majority of engines running under normal circumstances. I event stated that thicker oil has its place.


I think each vehicle owner can decide that for themselves based on all the thick vs thin threads. Personally, I don't like being that close to the edge of MOFT breakdown if pushing the engine hard, so no 5W-20 for me. I'm sure others can come to some conclusion that makes them feel good about what they run in thier vehicles. Nobody is forcing anyone to use thicker oil, only giving reasons why it would be a better choice is some instances.

Didn't you say you were "done" with this thread about 6 times?

 

[KrisZ]

To me there is a difference between making up your own mind based on technical discussion, so yeah those pesky SAE papers, and feel good arguments.

I've argued many times that oil choice, be it brand or viscocity, ultimately, in the grand scheme of things has very little effect on engine engine life. Regular oil changes and maintaining proper oil level are far more important.

But, when so many grossly incorrect things are mentioned and kept being repeated, a correction is required, not for the person that made the arguments in the first place, but for others that might want to actually learn something.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by KrisZ
To me there is a difference between making up your own mind based on technical discussion, so yeah those pesky SAE papers, and feel good arguments.

I've argued many times that oil choice, be it brand or viscocity, ultimately, in the grand scheme of things has very little effect on engine engine life. Regular oil changes and maintaining proper oil level are far more important.

But, when so many grossly incorrect things are mentioned and kept being repeated, a correction is required, not for the person that made the arguments in the first place, but for others that might want to actually learn something.


AGAIN, I didn't argue with the paper. Only that it should be further investigated to account for other variables because I CONSIDER the test to not include enough of a sample size with said variables. And I know what I'm asking for would be super expensive to conduct but it would be a complete picture. THAT'S ALL!

 

[KrisZ]

No, I'm talking about you claiming that thicker oil takes longer to warm up, totally discounting allowance for thicker oil in your owners manual because your engine RPM is low at highway speeds, talking about oil coolers and heat exchangers as proof of "proper engineering".

 

[nap]

Originally Posted by StevieC
AGAIN, I didn't argue with the paper.


You certainly did argue with the MANUAL, which was even more hilarious....

 

[StevieC]

I have left the building now on this thread. I know I said it before but really done. Please let the thread die. You aren't changing my mind.

 

[Shannow]

.