Recent Topics
2003 Ranger Radiator Replacement: Which Coolant?
by chucky2 - 11/16/19 08:55 PM
ATV axle removal
by supton - 11/16/19 07:45 PM
High speed chase
by P10crew - 11/16/19 07:28 PM
Oil for Daily Beater Camry
by Speak2Mountain - 11/16/19 07:18 PM
Green coolant, future availability ?
by rubberchicken - 11/16/19 06:11 PM
Weird tire wear
by ledslinger - 11/16/19 04:50 PM
Why does Ford resell lemons?
by avacado11 - 11/16/19 04:07 PM
Slow initial response to loading web pages
by JHZR2 - 11/16/19 04:06 PM
Motorcraft FL-910S
by PW01 - 11/16/19 03:54 PM
Walmart ammo clearance
by redbone3 - 11/16/19 03:35 PM
GENERAL Q regarding SPX snow plow
by Kira - 11/16/19 03:13 PM
78 C10 at show
by WiskyBadger - 11/16/19 03:00 PM
300blk ammo?
by buck91 - 11/16/19 02:52 PM
The Rock is still alive!
by Char Baby - 11/16/19 02:48 PM
Weird fuel leak
by BeerCan - 11/16/19 01:02 PM
Sinopec 75w-90 Synthetic
by jdw1222 - 11/16/19 12:51 PM
Honda Oil Filter
by miden851 - 11/16/19 12:28 PM
VOA for QSAD 10w-40?
by natas - 11/16/19 12:02 PM
Ford v Ferrari - anyone seen the movie yet?
by Oro_O - 11/16/19 12:01 PM
Newest Members
billad67, aka_Claus, Diverdown, natas, matt3540
69886 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
105 registered members (andyd, 2002 Maxima SE, AC1DD, 4WD, 2015_PSD, 10 invisible), 1,956 guests, and 22 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics297,520
Posts5,117,296
Members69,886
Most Online3,589
Nov 2nd, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Shannow] #4880390 09/26/18 07:30 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 25,017
StevieC Offline
Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 25,017
*Yawn* You done yet?


'18 Caravan - 45k KM - AMSOIL SS 0w20, Fram Ultra, TC-W3 500:1
'06 Santa Fe - 535k KM (Retired)

There is no such thing as "lifetime" fluids! mad
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: StevieC] #4880428 09/26/18 07:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,380
S
Shannow Offline OP
OP Offline
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,380
I'll re-iterate....smoking gun for what...?

The paper is about..."the effects of Viscosity on Heavy Duty Engine Components".


If it's the truth....it can handle the pressure !!!
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Shannow] #4880458 09/26/18 08:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 619
N
nap Offline
Offline
N
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 619
Here’s a different one

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301679X15003709

that may have the effect of rejoicing the thin camp. The thicker oil produced less iron but sensibly more lead in the UOA.


B4654F36-CBDE-462F-960A-D6566CE7477E.jpeg
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: StevieC] #4880633 09/27/18 02:24 AM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,975
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,975
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by Shannow
Yeah, you stated in the other thread(s) that as the studies aren't all engines and all circumstances, that they were equivalent to wild suppositions based on imagined engines, and imagined operational circumstances.

I disagree.

As I said in the other thread. Does it warrant more investigation sure, is it a smoking gun for all situation absolutely not.


It doesn't need "more investigation" ... it's been studied and tested for decades and the conclusion is still pretty much the same - higher viscosity/higher HTHS typically gives better wear protection.

Saying that the studies and their conclusions don't have any merit because it hasnt been "tested in every engine in every circumstances" known to exist in the world is another strawman argument.

Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: nap] #4880636 09/27/18 02:40 AM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,975
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,975
Originally Posted by nap
Here’s a different one

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301679X15003709

that may have the effect of rejoicing the thin camp. The thicker oil produced less iron but sensibly more lead in the UOA.


Lots of miles (km) on those oil runs - and the wear deviation starts showing up after 10 km. Did they take KV100 and HTHS readings as the miles piled up to see if the 10W-40 sheared down below the 5W-30? Lead wear would be journal bearings I would assume.

Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: ZeeOSix] #4880843 09/27/18 08:13 AM
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 619
N
nap Offline
Offline
N
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 619
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

Lots of miles (km) on those oil runs - and the wear deviation starts showing up after 10 km. Did they take KV100 and HTHS readings as the miles piled up to see if the 10W-40 sheared down below the 5W-30? Lead wear would be journal bearings I would assume.


The explanation offered by the authors is "The most feasible explanation could be linked to additive depletion. For oil B, after 20,000 km anti‐wear additives have been almost absolutely depleted (FT‐IR measurements have been performed to assess this situation) and an acidic attack against Babbitt metals appears leading to the situation previously mentioned. In the case of the LVO, the higher content of anti‐wear additives, let to obtain a longer period of usage where this corrosive wear is under control, obtaining very low lead wear rates."

Which may lead someone to be cautious with the latest iterations of consumer oil standards.... laugh



Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: nap] #4881276 09/27/18 03:08 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,380
S
Shannow Offline OP
OP Offline
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,380
nap, really good dot point that...additives at work.

It's consistent with the start-up wear statements here
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/600190/

Predominantly corrosion, not "flow"

I've posted stuff on hastening warmup before, think this, but will have to scout through the library over the weekend.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2011-01-0318/

(But suffice to say that thicker oil will heat faster...LOL)


If it's the truth....it can handle the pressure !!!
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Shannow] #4890545 10/08/18 12:26 AM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,314
S
Silk Online Content
Online Content
S
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,314
So, would the oil heat up faster in say a 7 bearing 6, as opposed to a 3 bearing crank 4 cyl of similar capacity ? Of course the 4 cyl is going to have larger journals which could just make it the same anyway.


1987 BMW R65 - Penrite VTwin 20-50
2005 Nissan Expert - 5W-30 Castrol Edge
1996 Volvo T5 - Penrite HPR15 - 15W-60. Ryco syntec filter.
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Silk] #4892469 10/10/18 02:24 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,380
S
Shannow Offline OP
OP Offline
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,380
Would say so...look at the bottom end of a slant 6, or 4 main ford versus the 7 bearings, and the mains aren't materially larger in total dimension than the 7s.

But the piston skirt area is a pretty big "bearing" area for heat to e generated, diminishing the effect of the mains.


If it's the truth....it can handle the pressure !!!
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Shannow] #4893037 10/10/18 01:52 PM
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,423
C
CR94 Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,423
Uh ... haven't 4-bearing in-line Sixes been obsolete for a very long time (a little less long for the Slant Six)? 3-bearing in-line Fours, too? GM, Ford, and AMC all switched to then-new 7-bearing Sixes in the early- to mid-1960s in the US.

Last edited by CR94; 10/10/18 01:54 PM.

2011 Toyota Prius now at 106K
1981 Mazda GLC (323) retired at 606K
1972 Subaru DL retired at 190K
1954 Chevrolet retired at 121K
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: CR94] #4893273 10/10/18 05:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,380
S
Shannow Offline OP
OP Offline
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,380
Was still a valid question, worth answering...


If it's the truth....it can handle the pressure !!!
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Shannow] #4893536 10/11/18 01:04 AM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,314
S
Silk Online Content
Online Content
S
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,314
In my mind I had a 149 Holden and a large British 4 cyl...large BMC, Rootes and Standard were still made at that time the 7 bearing Holden came out. There just seems to be a lot more going on in an inline 6 than a 3 bearing 4 to heat up oil. What's obsolete got to do with anything ?


1987 BMW R65 - Penrite VTwin 20-50
2005 Nissan Expert - 5W-30 Castrol Edge
1996 Volvo T5 - Penrite HPR15 - 15W-60. Ryco syntec filter.
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Shannow] #4901760 10/21/18 07:36 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,971
C
Cujet Offline
Offline
C
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,971
Decades ago, engineers learned that direct measurement was required when testing wear rates. UOA's, while helpful, do not reflect individual wear rates.

I worked for Mobil OIl in their flight department. I worked with the Mobil engineers on SHC100 grease testing and on Mobil 245 turbine engine oil. This was real world testing on Mobil Oil's flight department fleet. With very specific testing protocols. The scanning electron microscope and other forms of very precise measurement were the best ways to determine wear rates.

I was a young guy and always found time to chat with the engineers about the processes and results. It was amazing to see how they could accurately determine bearing wear rates on perfectly serviceable bearings.

What we consider UOA; mass spectrometry, was interesting information, but did not reflect real world wear, and especially wear of individual components.


People who count on their fingers should maintain a discreet silence.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

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