Low Viscosity doesn't have to mean low quality

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
They'll just put a fuel nozzle on the valve cover. Fill the tank and... check the gas level?

It will be the 1.5R for Refinery.

 

[dave1251]

Nor does it equal less engine life or it does not protect.

 

[CT8]

There is a huge problem with reading articles and the readers not able to discern it the articles are facts or opinion, marketing or brain washing attempts.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by StevieC
Well if you put a 0w20 in a Honda 1.5T it turns into a 0w8 by itself so that must be the market RP is after with their 0w8.

It's the Honda Evolution. You put in 0w-20, which then becomes 0w-16, then 0w-12 and then 0w-8. If you leave it in long enough it eventually becomes indistinguishable from the substance found in the fuel tank

Leave it to Honda to go 0w0 and leave every other OE in their dust.

Maybe I should play it safe and use my old beloved 20W50 haha

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted by 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)!

OP, please define :
a) low viscosity;
b) low quality , as per title by you and ;
c) 0w-20 motor oil;as per Amsoil statement and
d) 15w50, in relation to (c).

Quote
Additives and Basestock play important roles in providing the same protection in thinner oils as thicker ones.

The bold is exactly what must be emphasised or highlighted within the very same sentences in proper perspective in almost all comparisons between low viscosity vs non-viscosity made by you in order not to cause confusion among readers .

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
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.

Yep, and articles that claim inadequate lubrication occurs in engines with "tight clearances" when using higher viscosity oils are full of it.

And if that was true, modern cars in different countries built with the same engines with the same clearances as the US engines wouldn't specify a large range of recommended viscosity in the owner's manual.

 

[ChemLabNL]

"Modern engines are built with tight clearances between parts than their predecessors"

No they're not.

Does anyone really think that 0.0007 and 15w50 don't mix?

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted by 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?





Despite the superiority of typical xW20 in base oil quality and additive package quality and often times with superior friction-reduction properties , over and above that of xW30 and xW40, you'd highlighted a phenomenon (depending on equipments and varying operating conditions ) where viscosities, hence MOFT does make a 'substantial' and perceptible differences in outcomes in real world happenings.

 

[userfriendly]

Good one Zee. Who other than me has put SAE 40 or XW40 in "0W20 engines" and let them go 12,000 miles without adding oil between changes?

 

[zeng]

Originally Posted by ChemLabNL
"Modern engines are built with tight clearances between parts than their predecessors"

No they're not.

Does anyone really think that 0.0007 and 15w50 don't mix?

It seems to me Amsoil does not 'know' typical MOFT is in so many tenths or a hundred or two (or more for very thick/high viscosity oils) NANOMETRES.
Or this writer is simply incompetent , IF he is a qualified engineer in lubricants technology ?
I know he is VP Technical.

Note: 1 microns = 1000 nanometres.
0.0007 inch = 17,780 nanometrs.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Understood, but we shouldn't be afraid of lower viscosities either.

Absolutely not. Those who are selling them, though, should be pointed out the measurable, verifiable benefits, rather than trotting out scare tactics. That's no better than the OEMs where one year a car is allowing all sorts of things, then the next year, warning to use 0w-20 year round in all temperature conditions for the same car and warning of dire consequences, when the real wording should be, "We did it for the CAFE credits." I'm the first to choose a lube based on its year round suitability from -40 C to +40 C, but we don't need the apocalyptic warnings.

 

[Shannow]

Firstly, if SAE papers and charts should be dissuaded from the board for being overly scary, then how are the quotes that you felt needed to be bolded...some of them patently untrue for any grade at operating temperature allowable ?

Originally Posted by 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.


Is there a technical measure of the "quality" of protection ?

That's just made up and not representative of what the Vice President of Product Development (VPPD) wrote.

"As motor oil viscosity continues to decrease, base oil and additive quality become more important"

He's talking ingredients , not some new measure of "lubrication quality" invented in the last 24 hours.


Originally Posted by StevieC
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.


Have always maintained that there's more to it than HTHS...just some people are fixated on "hating" HTHS, and viscosity (first time I've used that...it feels good, I understand why people keep getting labelled haters...it's sooo easy.

Viscosity keeps parts separated...they don't touch. In classic engineering, that used to be called the "zero wear regime".

When the parts touch, you need additives to CONTROL the wear...just like he said.

...And just like I've always said.

That's the region of "controlled wear"...it's there, it's just slow enough to not really matter that much in the lifetime of the equipment...for industrial applications, you pick which regime you want, and design to suit.

Next post, VPPD's "information" and validating it.

 

[Shannow]

Will have to go in a number of sections, as was nearly done and lost the lot...

Originally Posted by VPTD
viscosity, pumping losses and startup flow for economy


As I've previously demonstrated , the difference in "pumping losses" between any of the typical engine oil viscosities at operating temperature is less than a single high beam filament...the actual losses that they are trying to avoid are shear losses in bearing surfaces (note bearing surfaces is not limited to "bearings", piston skirts to wall are a "bearing surface"...they are an order of magnitude higher than the pump power difference.

As to flow...doesn't do anything for economy. Startup flow, which is related to ambient and the W rating (not 16 or 50) doesn't either...except

The OEMs are trying to minimise the viscosity during warmup (they write papers on that).

Originally Posted by VPTD
viscosity and a "durable" fluid film


durable fluid film...that raises my interest, more on it later.

Viscosity and minimum oil film thickness...more viscosity, more MOFT...simple...he gets that, but the

Originally Posted by VPTD
Clearances


Others have hit on that quite well and realistic...why did he pick on the narrowest, not the norm, not the mean, just the smallest ?

Misdirection...helps you to understand his later (incorrect) points.

His 0.0007" is 18 microns (um)
In operation the MOFT is 3-6 (um)


16 or 50 manage to get in there...and it's not because of the oil pump.

Now to column 2

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by VPTD
Volatility


Starts OK, finishes with a fail on oil pump pumping losses.

With thickening, we've seen in their "ASTM" tests that they compare what happens with their oil (and most oils) to the absolute limits of the testing...necking with your cousin at the prom is not FTW.

Thickening is part of the oil degradation process, NOT the cause that "leads" to deposits and additive balance disruption (whatever that is, as additives are there to perform functions, and the total package changes as they do it.

Originally Posted by VPTD
Boundary lubrication, additives and wear


Clearly, he's read my posts over the last decade and a half.

MOFT - more viscosity equals more MOFT. Once it's above the height of the asperites, it reaches full blown hydrodynamic...technically (historically) that used to be referred to as the "zero wear regime" (zero operating wear, there's still starts and stops)...parts don't touch, parts don't wear.

When that reduces to asperite contact, mixed and boundary, then you require additives to from sacrificial films to protect the bulk metal. That regime is historically referred to as the "controlled" wear regime.

Parts touch, parts wear (or layers are stripped, and replenished with films containing more virgin metal)….it's controlled. Controlled to the point that you no longer need the machine, bearing or wear item.

Boundary and additive is NOT equivalent to hydrodynamic lubrication, in spite of the OP's assertions.

You pick the duty point that you need, and design the system to suit...

Trading life for economy, where the life is never going to be used is a perfectly valid tradeoff...and I've said THAT all along too.

Originally Posted by VPTD
Absorbing contact and sacrificial layers


Yes to the sacrificaial layers...as to "absorbing" contact....no

Unfortunately not even a conditional pass in this "paper"

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
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.


From the other thread...I've even left the typos...

Originally Posted by Shannow
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2880.pdf

Let's walk through the claims...

wear - claim is against the industry standard certificated wear test...results comparible with their competitors. (used SS 0W20 - sequence IVA allows you to test the thinnest oil in a rnage, and then certify the other, thicker oils off the thinnest, but not the other way...BTW, doesn't that tell you something about viscosity and wear...by the industry standard wear test ?)

LSPI - 100% - that's 100% of tests run with zero ring land failures...OE oils claim exactly the same (scarcely neutered in that regard eh ?)

protects turbochargers - better by 72%...than the specification, not competitors oils, who ALL also have to beat the test.

Cleaning power
* 50% more detergents - than XL series
* 90% better sludge protection...than the standard (why didn't they compare it to the neutered XL, seeing as that's what they compared their first claim to ?...because IT beat the standard also)

Engine Masters Challenge...hmmm....there's something about that challenge...sponsorship etc (BTW, I buy every single engine masters challenge mag...they are $17 down here).

Extended oil changes...they've changed their metric from 25,000 miles (just like Mobil used to claim, and comparable to M1 0W40 capabilities in MB and BMW certifications))...and now include 700 engine operating hours as well. Honestly, any decent synthetic could do 25,000 miles with the stipulation that it had a minimum average speed of 35.7MPH, or no more than 2 hours idling per day, or nor more than a year...they NEAUTERED themselves. (btw, "if you choose" is not a recommendation)

Preserves horsepower … hmmm ...SS "helped" maintain the horsepower...As StevieC states regularly, the main contributor to longevity is design and manufacture.

Limits oil consumption - via NOACK...again, is an against industry specifications, but...note this time they switched viscosity to the 5W20, which Isn't the 0W20, nor their 5W30...it's the lowest NOACK in the lineup, bar the (politically incorrect) 10W-30.

Easier Cold starts - as noted previously, they are claiming that pour point is an indicator of cold startability...that was thrown out by the API decades ago...modern engine tests ? LOL...anyway, they compared their pour point to a conventional, then claim 66 better starting … in degrees F...
* can't use percentages in degrees F
* if their 5W30 was better than the dino, significantly in MRV and CCS, then it MUST be labelled according to the lowers MRV and CCS that the oil meets.
* if you need better than a 5W30, buy a 0W30...if the 5W30 MEETS the specs for a 0W30, then it MUST be labelled as a 0W30

Maintains Protective Viscosity - now that's spin... the STANDARD test limits the oil THICKENING...and all certified oils beat it, and probably handsomely...but later in the paragraph, it's about economy and VVT …

So lets mix some standards, some competitors, some dino, some misapplied specs (4 ball was one, Pour Point is another), cherry pick viscosities and tests, and claim that to certify the above would "neuter" the end result.

BTW, I've only been interested enough to counter the "science" since it as thrust at me earlier as "science"

Oh, and as to "hate" the final argument for those who can't argue...They are, in my opinion decent oils, like ACD...I am looking at their gear oils (since they marketed their engine oils as gear oils for decades)

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by StevieC
Understood, but we shouldn't be afraid of lower viscosities either.

Absolutely not. Those who are selling them, though, should be pointed out the measurable, verifiable benefits, rather than trotting out scare tactics. That's no better than the OEMs where one year a car is allowing all sorts of things, then the next year, warning to use 0w-20 year round in all temperature conditions for the same car and warning of dire consequences, when the real wording should be, "We did it for the CAFE credits." I'm the first to choose a lube based on its year round suitability from -40 C to +40 C, but we don't need the apocalyptic warnings.



^^^^^^^

Great, great post here by Garak.

Funny how the VQ motor is now specd for a 0w20 and yet when mine came out it was quite wide open... And nothing has really changed with these motors.

 

[Shannow]

OK, and now for gigs and advertising fluff...Sig Series beats XL per the above...so what does XL do ?
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g1404.pdf

Claim 1 resists thermal breakdown.
Beats the required test by 64%...all compliant oils beat the test too

Claim 2 protects pistons from LSPI by an amazing 100%
Just like they all have to do, as did SS

Claim 3 more cleaning power...a whole 25% more
25% more than Amsoil OE...starting to note the circularity in the logic ?

Claim 4 reduced maintenance (see over, not on the cover sheet)
12,000 miles or a year...no hours limit, or 35.7mph minimum operating speed in this one
...

 

[Shannow]

And as the OE is referenced...here's the OE ASTM thing...
https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g3404.pdf

Claim 1 - advanced wear protection
Peugeot TU3M test (which DOES include cams and followers)...why not the Sequence IVA wear test just like the SS handsomely beat (and the Revenol, API licenced oil then beat by a percent)
Why choose a different test to represent the lower superior wear protection ?
Because, as I've said, all the certificated oils beat it handsomely also...wouldn't look so good if the SS wasn't extraordinarily superior to the "neutered" API approved OE.

Claim 2 - LSPI
Once again, zero recorded LSPI events...100% protection

Claim 3 - cleanliness
Deference to superior ingredients and "pure chemical" structure - some fluff, but need that to build the above hierarchy on.

Claim 4 - all temperature
Deference to ingredients, this time "uniform" structure and better ingredients

Claim 5- Improves fuel economy and maintains emissions
Beat the requirements for the API...which all API licenced lubricants have to able to beat.- followed by waffle...

 

[Shannow]

re my statements on oil film strength...

https://mobiloil.com/en/faq/ask-our...th-of-mobil-1-compared-with-royal-purple

 

[4WD]

That reminds me … are we not overdue for another Rat thread? Just kidding … Happy Thanksgiving all …