Low Viscosity doesn't have to mean low quality

[StevieC]

I would post this here as a graphic however with the new update to the forum it's not displaying well so here is a PDF instead, better this way because then you can resize to make reading it easier: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rTVc4XEXLURbUZtqQDqCDazcbCUyWQV9/view?usp=sharing

Snippets:
Quote
... You might think it advantageous to throw out your 0w-20 motor oil and use 15w50 instead. That's a bad idea, and here is why.

Modern engines are built with tight clearances between parts than their predecessors. Let's take the GM 3.8L engines we test in our mechanical lab as an example. The clearances between the crankshaft journals and main bearings can be as low as .0007 inches. That's thinner than a sheet of paper (about .004 inches) ...

... Using a higher viscosity oil than what's recommended in your modern engine would lead to increased wear.

... Although oil film thickness is related to lubricant viscosity, film strength is a function of base oil and additive quality.

... Additives, too play a vital role in low viscosity oils. We talked about boundary lubrication earlier. When in a boundary lubrication situation, protecting against metal to metal contact falls on the motor oil's anti-wear additives, more so than with higher viscosity oils. The additives form a sacrificial barrier on metal parts that absorbs contact and protects the metal surfaces.


Apparently Japan is working on 0w8 oils (End of this article)!

 

[AZjeff]

Don't really recall anyone here claiming 0W-20 was low quality.... just low viscosity. The writer does a good job not making it an Amsoil advert.

Which additives form the sacrificial barrier that absorbs metal to metal contact he mentions?

 

[StevieC]

It's the title of the article, maybe not the best but it's about folks thinking of thinner viscosity as lower quality protection. It is some what of an Amsoil advert for their 0w16 oil newly released toward the end, but it has some good information in there that applies to all lower viscosity oils.

As for which additives that would be a combination of what you would see in a VOA and I'm sure highly secret for what we can't see as it would be with M1 etc. for competitive reasons but you can spend the ~ $1300 to find out if you want, I certainly would be interested to see.

I didn't post this Article to tout Amsoil, it's about the validating information they are talking about, being that there is more to protection than viscosity / HTHS. Additives and Basestock play important roles in providing the same protection in thinner oils as thicker ones. And using a thicker oil can cause increased wear and why that is.

 

[Oildudeny]

So tell me why 0w20 is low quality? Who makes low quality oil these days? Would that be an oil that doesn't have the dexos rating? amsoil being one

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Oildudeny
So tell me why 0w20 is low quality? Who makes low quality oil these days? Would that be an oil that doesn't have the dexos rating? amsoil being one

Amsoil is capable of Dexos they just aren't dumb enough to pay for it. Their ASTM test results by an independent lab are posted on their site and pictures of various components posted. But I know you along with others won't believe that because of Bias, and that's fine.

Second they have a line of API licensed fluids showing they are more than capable.

We also have an e-mail confirming that they meet Dexos specifications and I posted it here. This would open them up to be sued if it weren't the case.
Furthermore you are in the U.S. so you are covered with the OE having to prove it was a fault of the lubricant.

The quality is referring to the fact that it's a common thought that only thicker oils can be of high enough quality and offer better protection, which they call out as not being the case because of the proper additives and base stock allowing thinner viscosity oils to perform with the same level of protection. But don't take my word for it read the article.

Don't forget that Patman overheated his Civic on 20wt oil and it went on perfectly fine thereafter, good real world proof that a thinner oil with proper additives can protect the engine not just under normal circumstances but past that in the case of overheating the engine.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Modern engines are built with tight clearances between parts than their predecessors. Let's take the GM 3.8L engines we test in our mechanical lab as an example. The clearances between the crankshaft journals and main bearings can be as low as .0007 inches. That's thinner than a sheet of paper (about .004 inches) ...


Originally Posted by Ford

1985 on 302:
crank
main bearing
desired 0.0004 to 0.0015 in
allowable 0.0004 to 0.0026 in


Clearances haven't really gotten tighter.

Also, when Ford produced the Track Pack version of the Mustang GT, the Coyote engine didn't get wider main and rod bearing clearances despite going from spec'ing 5w-20 to 5w-50.

 

[Oildudeny]

Here is amsoil selling another. https://youtu.be/mEB7WbTTlu4

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
Modern engines are built with tight clearances between parts than their predecessors. Let's take the GM 3.8L engines we test in our mechanical lab as an example. The clearances between the crankshaft journals and main bearings can be as low as .0007 inches. That's thinner than a sheet of paper (about .004 inches) ...


Originally Posted by Ford

1985 on 302:
crank
main bearing
desired 0.0004 to 0.0015 in
allowable 0.0004 to 0.0026 in


Clearances haven't really gotten tighter.

Also, when Ford produced the Track Pack version of the Mustang GT, the Coyote engine didn't get wider main and rod bearing clearances despite going from spec'ing 5w-20 to 5w-50.

I didn't write it, they did. And after seeing the numbers on my UOA in the Journey and Santa Fe and all the mileage in my Santa Fe, I think they know what they are talking about. But I can't comment on the clearances. It really is good info on additives and base-stock being important in lower viscosity oils to protect the same as thicker oils. It's why we see high mile engines here run on 20wt's no problem just the same as thicker weights.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Oildudeny
Here is amsoil selling another. https://youtu.be/mEB7WbTTlu

You live in a van down by the river don't you?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
Modern engines are built with tight clearances between parts than their predecessors. Let's take the GM 3.8L engines we test in our mechanical lab as an example. The clearances between the crankshaft journals and main bearings can be as low as .0007 inches. That's thinner than a sheet of paper (about .004 inches) ...


Originally Posted by Ford

1985 on 302:
crank
main bearing
desired 0.0004 to 0.0015 in
allowable 0.0004 to 0.0026 in


Clearances haven't really gotten tighter.

Also, when Ford produced the Track Pack version of the Mustang GT, the Coyote engine didn't get wider main and rod bearing clearances despite going from spec'ing 5w-20 to 5w-50.

They were probably thinking reduced warranty claims changing the spec to 5W50 in the Track Pack version.

 

[Oildudeny]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by Oildudeny
Here is amsoil selling another. https://youtu.be/mEB7WbTTlu

You live in a van down by the river don't you?

Near powerlines and with a bucket of paint chips. amsoil blew my engine van no run.

 

[StevieC]

See now that is something I can laugh at.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC


I didn't write it, they did. And after seeing the numbers on my UOA in the Journey and Santa Fe I think they know what they are talking about.

I'm aware you didn't write it, I simply pulled the quote from your post.

No need to get defensive, however that statement is false. If you go back and look up the main bearing clearances for engines over the years, they really haven't changed much.

Ignoring for the moment that UOA's aren't a tear-down with measurements so we avoid that detour for the time being, architectural changes have been made to engines to accommodate the use of thinner lubricants. These changes are myriad, but a few of the major ones are:
- Deep skirted rigid blocks
- Multi-bolt (often pinned) main caps
- High volume crank-driven oil pumps

Rigidity of the structure housing the rotating assembly is a key thing here. You eliminate the ability for things to flex, distort and move around you can get away with having less oil between the surfaces.

Now, with the push to even thinner oils, what Honda has been doing is increasing bearing width, which is necessary with a thinner film for things to survive. There's a thread about it on here somewhere, it's quite interesting. As the film gets thinner and thinner and more components are operating in mixed and boundary, the additive package must work to minimize the wear occurring in this realm. It's about wear control, since it cannot be eliminated. The moment surfaces touch, there is wear. Now, this introduces friction, as does increasing bearing width, so it was an interesting discussion that I recall Shannow being engaged in as to the frictional tradeoff by increased operation in this end of the Streibech curve vs the increased friction of a heavier lubricant in hydrodynamic. Apparently, boundary and mixed still wins, even with the larger bearings. If it didn't, Honda wouldn't be pursuing it.

 

[StevieC]

I changed my post up above because it did come off as defensive after I re-read it. Wasn't my intention. Just explaining why I posted the article and what it has to offer in terms of information. Not about selling Amsoil product to anyone here. And yeah I didn't tear down the Santa Fe engine and wish I had but with 535,000km on this unit with 0 consumption at time of death I'm pretty sure that speaks well for the condition of the engine.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by demarpaint


They were probably thinking reduced warranty claims changing the spec to 5W50 in the Track Pack version.

As I recall the Track Pack got a big oil cooler and different ECM programming to either eliminate or significantly modify the thermal castration mechanism employed on the "regular" GT. Now, I think the current version spec's 5w-30 IIRC.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
I changed my post up above because it did come off as defensive after I re-read it. Wasn't my intention. Just explaining why I posted the article and what it has to offer in terms of information. Not about selling Amsoil product to anyone here.

That's fine.

 

[PimTac]

"Apparently Japan is working on 0w8 oils (End of this article)! "



Royal Purple has a 0w8 oil. (racing). This should cause some heartburn among some here.


https://royalpurpledirect.com/product/xpr-0w-8/

 

[Oildudeny]

If a very unsophisticated engine like one on a lawn mower can run for years on cheap oil, peoples old oil from their last year's oil change, why do we think our car engines are so sensitive to what oil they receive?

 

[clinebarger]

Bearing Clearance is relative to Pin/Journal Diameter, The larger the Pin Diameter.....The more bearing clearance it will need regardless of oil viscosity!

Not that a Buick 3800 is a modern engine by any stretch & never called for a Xw20 oil......

What about all the Ford 5.4L 3V cam journal/carrier failures associated with running Xw20 oils, Where owners running Xw30 & Xw40 on the same OCI never seem to experience?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by demarpaint


They were probably thinking reduced warranty claims changing the spec to 5W50 in the Track Pack version.

As I recall the Track Pack got a big oil cooler and different ECM programming to either eliminate or significantly modify the thermal castration mechanism employed on the "regular" GT. Now, I think the current version spec's 5w-30 IIRC.


Yes thermal castration to run a thinner oil in a high performance engine, just what the Dr. ordered. I recall reading somewhere Ford bumped up a grade in some of their engines to cut back on warranty claims. But that's old news.