Recent Topics
My Latest Purchase: 95 Chevrolet K1500
by dogememe. 10/23/18 05:05 PM
Ford factory filter vs MC FL500
by Arob. 10/23/18 03:15 PM
Fees for selling business products on Amazon?
by Ed_Flecko. 10/23/18 03:15 PM
Castrol Magnatec 5w20
by buster. 10/23/18 02:06 PM
Soft brake pedal culprits?
by nthach. 10/23/18 01:46 PM
WalMart Valvoline MaxLife 5W20 not SN+
by Silver. 10/23/18 01:32 PM
Pennzoil Availability....alte
rnatives?

by BTLew81. 10/23/18 01:16 PM
Revisiting Fumoto Washer - blue or OEM?
by buster. 10/23/18 12:02 PM
Detonation, Now only at high RPMs
by NICAT. 10/23/18 11:51 AM
List motor oils based viscosity index?
by Onetor. 10/23/18 10:37 AM
hard drive space keeps filling up on virtual machine
by oilpsi2high. 10/23/18 10:08 AM
Risks of running a lower pressure bypass
by JoelB. 10/23/18 10:07 AM
Hiking/nature photos
by Pew. 10/23/18 09:47 AM
CarGurus
by Zee09. 10/23/18 09:30 AM
Smart Charging System Differences
by StevieC. 10/23/18 09:25 AM
Do all shocks have oil or some oil in them?
by JLawrence08648. 10/23/18 08:10 AM
2014 Hyundai Santa Fe, alternator probs or not?
by Robster. 10/23/18 07:23 AM
Newest Members
WmMaroon, hogan646, hermie, avatar299, dexterbb
66281 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
82 registered members (08z06, anndel, 2oldtommy, Alfred_B, 53' Stude, 6 invisible), 1,843 guests, and 32 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics292,424
Posts4,879,398
Members66,281
Most Online2,494
Oct 17th, 2018
Donate to BITOG
Previous Thread
Next Thread
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 08:30 PM
09/26/18 08:30 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,598
Ontario, Canada
StevieC Offline
StevieC  Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,598
Ontario, Canada
*Yawn* You done yet?


'18 Dodge Grand Caravan GT - AMSOIL SS 0w20
'06 Santa Fe - 535,000km AMSOIL SS 0w30 / ATF
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: StevieC] #4880428
09/26/18 08:53 PM
09/26/18 08:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,230
'Stralia
Shannow Online content OP
Shannow  Online Content OP
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,230
'Stralia
I'll re-iterate....smoking gun for what...?

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


Not everything is a conspiracy...only the important stuff ontome
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Shannow] #4880458
09/26/18 09:12 PM
09/26/18 09:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 618
Canada
nap Offline
nap  Offline
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 618
Canada
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 03:24 AM
09/27/18 03:24 AM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 18,941
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 18,941
PNW
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 03:40 AM
09/27/18 03:40 AM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 18,941
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 18,941
PNW
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 09:13 AM
09/27/18 09:13 AM
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 618
Canada
nap Offline
nap  Offline
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 618
Canada
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 04:08 PM
09/27/18 04:08 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,230
'Stralia
Shannow Online content OP
Shannow  Online Content OP
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,230
'Stralia
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)


Not everything is a conspiracy...only the important stuff ontome
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Shannow] #4890545
10/08/18 01:26 AM
10/08/18 01:26 AM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,816
New Zealand
Silk Offline
Silk  Offline
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,816
New Zealand
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 V Twin 20/50
2005 Nissan Expert - Gulf Western 10W-40
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 03:24 AM
10/10/18 03:24 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,230
'Stralia
Shannow Online content OP
Shannow  Online Content OP
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,230
'Stralia
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.


Not everything is a conspiracy...only the important stuff ontome
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Shannow] #4893037
10/10/18 02:52 PM
10/10/18 02:52 PM
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,488
Western S.C. since 1996
CR94 Offline
CR94  Offline
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,488
Western S.C. since 1996
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 02:54 PM.

2011 Toyota Prius now at 93K
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 06:31 PM
10/10/18 06:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,230
'Stralia
Shannow Online content OP
Shannow  Online Content OP
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 41,230
'Stralia
Was still a valid question, worth answering...


Not everything is a conspiracy...only the important stuff ontome
Re: Low Viscosity Effect on Heavy Duty Engine Components [Re: Shannow] #4893536
10/11/18 02:04 AM
10/11/18 02:04 AM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,816
New Zealand
Silk Offline
Silk  Offline
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,816
New Zealand
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 V Twin 20/50
2005 Nissan Expert - Gulf Western 10W-40
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 08:36 AM
10/21/18 08:36 AM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,543
Jupiter, Florida
Cujet Offline
Cujet  Offline
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,543
Jupiter, Florida
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

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