Going by HTHS

[StevieC]

Show me this is the fault of a 20wt oil with a lower HTHS here and that a 40wt with higher HTHS would have solved this problem that's why I brought it up.

Of course fuel dilution in an engine is not a good thing but Honda wasn't pushing for owners to come in for 40wt oils for higher HTHS values in the meantime or as part of the solution to this problem.

Also it wasn't a ton of "complete engine failures" it was some engine failures and this was mainly because they were at some crazy fuel dilution number not the typical 2% or less we see in 20wt lower HTHS oil samples but enough fuel in the oil to raise the dipstick reading which wouldn't be acceptable for any engine.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Show me this is the fault of a 20wt oil with a lower HTHS here and that a 40wt with higher HTHS would have solved this problem that's why I brought it up.


It's not at all in any way the fault of the oil. While a heavier oil would be more tolerant of what's transpiring with these engines, it shouldn't be happening in the first place.

To address your edit:

I would suspect any attempt at just trying to bury it with a heavier lubricant would be met with more resistance than the "solution" that was rejected by China. A heavier oil isn't going to eliminate the oil level getting beyond acceptable levels and triggering a CEL or shutdown. It would likely aide in mitigating the wear that taking place but does absolutely nothing to address the root cause.

 

[StevieC]

No it shouldn't be happening in the first place but the ones that don't have massive fuel dilution raising the dipstick aren't imploding with their minor fuel dilution proving that the HTHS of a 20wt oil being about 2.6ish is perfectly fine. We have other UOA's here that show that with other brands... My father in laws Caravan 2% dilution and fine nothing from the lab about panic and switching to 40wt oil and its HTHS would be affected by that amount of fuel.

My argument is that if the OE specifies 20wt oil which is HTHS of about 2.6ish on average, that they expect some deviance from this as the oil gets contaminated. It's not going to instantly start wearing your engine out and it's not a good argument for using a 40wt oil in fear. The Honda engines are extreme cases but even then it took a boat load of fuel in the oil before the ones that failed to happen and that means the HTHS would be drastically affected at that point.

So your average 20wt user not having boat loads of fuel dilution well over 2% will be more than fine thanks to the oil's robust additives today that prevent wear.

 

[dblshock]

I just run the A3/B4 Edge and when the level rises I draw a qt. and replace half that with fresh 0/40. Can't understand why anyone wouldn't use this motor oil grade over the same priced wimpy w20.

 

[DrDanger]

This theory is the type of stuff I come here for. I think cam lobe, cylinder, oil ring, turbo blade bearing wear is what your average Joe sees/hears/worries about.
And this is covered by the HTHS parameter of oil, at least to my knowledge.
What parts of the engine rely on kinematic viscosity more than others and can HTHS reliably and without
exclusion be used for proper engine lubrication spec?

 

[StevieC]

If it couldn't wouldn't the OE have specified 40wt instead like they do with some German vehicles?

I'm a "Show me the actual evidence" that using a 20wt will shorten the life of my engine over using a 40wt.

- Where are the scrapyards full of 20wt run vehicles that died just out of warranty because the oil was only "good enough".

- Where is the real world tear downs of 40wt run engines that are compared to 20wt engines.

- If we depended on HTHS alone I could see it being important to pick an oil with higher HTHS value than the OE specifies
but the additives are so good at making up the difference, HTHS values don't need to be upgraded past what the OE requires in order to provide protection.

Where it does matter they specify the use of a thicker oil.
Why aren't folks using 50 and 60 weight oils in their 40 applications or 70wt oils in 60wt applications, surely more HTHS would be better if it held true wouldn't it?

Seriously though, BITOG should look into pharmaceutical sponsors because folks have so much anxiety about ACEA specs and HTHS for normal daily driver applications over nothing. Take a Xanax already and look through the high mileage UOA's run on 20wt oils.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
If it couldn't wouldn't the OE have specified 40wt instead like they do with some German vehicles?

I'm a "Show me the actual evidence" that using a 20wt will shorten the life of my engine over using a 40wt.

- Where are the scrapyards full of 20wt run vehicles that died just out of warranty because the oil was only "good enough".

- Where is the real world tear downs of 40wt run engines that are compared to 20wt engines.

- If we depended on HTHS alone I could see it being important to pick an oil with higher HTHS value than the OE specifies
but the additives are so good at making up the difference, HTHS values don't need to be upgraded past what the OE requires in order to provide protection.

Where it does matter they specify the use of a thicker oil.
Why aren't folks using 50 and 60 weight oils in their 40 applications or 70wt oils in 60wt applications, surely more HTHS would be better if it held true wouldn't it?


Actually, Shannow addressed this earlier today in a post indicating that around the 3.5-3.8 range for HTHS is "optimal" for a typical bearing design. Going above that saps economy unnecessarily.

Regarding the additives, there was a Honda paper posted by Shannow a few years back that one could probably find if interested that talked about the slide (pun intended) into boundary lubrication from hydrodynamic and the necessity for additives to deal with operation in this regime to control wear. Note that the word they used was not eliminate or prevent, but control. Wear outside of hydrodynamic is a fact of life, but one can work to minimize it, which is what was being pursued at the time by Honda, in conjunction with wider bearings to handle the thinner tribofilms occurring with the lower HTHS grades they were pursued for fuel economy.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by StevieC
. . . Take a Xanax already and look through the high mileage UOA's run on 20wt oils.

Here's an even better idea (because it's mine, of course

): Call the Xanax optional (for if you're really and truly oil-addled), stay within the broad boundaries of sound reason in oil choices, and enjoy the darned car you're probably paying through the nose to operate. . .

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Actually, Shannow addressed this earlier today in a post indicating that around the 3.5-3.8 range for HTHS is "optimal" for a typical bearing design. Going above that saps economy unnecessarily.

Regarding the additives, there was a Honda paper posted by Shannow a few years back that one could probably find if interested that talked about the slide (pun intended) into boundary lubrication from hydrodynamic and the necessity for additives to deal with operation in this regime to control wear. Note that the word they used was not eliminate or prevent, but control. Wear outside of hydrodynamic is a fact of life, but one can work to minimize it, which is what was being pursued at the time by Honda, in conjunction with wider bearings to handle the thinner tribofilms occurring with the lower HTHS grades they were pursued for fuel economy.


Yes, and as I said to him when he brought that up... "Show me where this has any bearing (no pun intended) on the life of an engine in the real world and how it affects those wishing to keep engines well past the junk points of most vehicles".

The "controlled wear" is so minuscule it means nothing over the long life of an engine even if it's kept far past 200K miles (320,000km). We have UOA's here proving engines went this far on low weighted oils.

Oil additives have come a long way since "a while back" when he posted that information with the advent of specs like Dexos 1 Gen 2 for example, so I would argue that this "controlled wear" which was minuscule before as the UOA's show, is even less of a concern today and doesn't warrant stressing about using a 0w40 in fear because it has a better HTHS rating or asking for ACEA specifications to find out what is being used outside of North America.

I hope I was clear enough. (really, not being sarcastic)

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Actually, Shannow addressed this earlier today in a post indicating that around the 3.5-3.8 range for HTHS is "optimal" for a typical bearing design. Going above that saps economy unnecessarily.

Regarding the additives, there was a Honda paper posted by Shannow a few years back that one could probably find if interested that talked about the slide (pun intended) into boundary lubrication from hydrodynamic and the necessity for additives to deal with operation in this regime to control wear. Note that the word they used was not eliminate or prevent, but control. Wear outside of hydrodynamic is a fact of life, but one can work to minimize it, which is what was being pursued at the time by Honda, in conjunction with wider bearings to handle the thinner tribofilms occurring with the lower HTHS grades they were pursued for fuel economy.


Yes, and as I said to him when he brought that up... "Show me where this has any bearing (no pun intended) on the life of an engine in the real world and how it affects those wishing to keep engines well past the junk points of most vehicles".

The "controlled wear" is so minuscule it means nothing over the long life of an engine even if it's kept far past 200K miles (360,000km). We have UOA's here proving that.

Oil additives have come a long way since "a while back" when he posted that information with the advent of Dexos for example so I would argue that this "controlled wear" which was minuscule before as the UOA's show, is even less of a concern today and doesn't warranty using a 0w40 in fear.

I hope I was clear enough. (really, not being sarcastic)


But when you are obsessing over the minutiae, which really, is what's taking place here, the difference between zero wear (hydrodynamic) and controlled wear (mixed/boundary) is real. Certainly as long as wear is suitably controlled it won't mean anything of significance over the useful life of the equipment, but in terms of an answer, yes, a lubricant that changes the operating regime from mixed/boundary to hydrodynamic is reducing wear overall, even if the impact of that reduction is, under typical operating conditioned, insignificant, qualified as above.

 

[StevieC]

The end goal is all that matters and that is engine life. No stress needs to be endured using a 20wt versus a 40wt. That's my point. You have a lot of folks that read the forum and they think they should automatically dump lower weight oil in favour for higher weight oil for a better HTHS when it means nothing to their application in the long-term so why do it when the benefits will be realized only if the car lives to see maybe a million miles?

They don't understand that when you or others speak of wear you are talking about the tiny minuscule amount that makes not a shred of difference to them keeping their vehicle on the road longer than they could have imagined unless Million Mile lexus is the goal but I doubt is the goal and we don't even know if by then it would still be a problem but we do have confirmation that tons of miles have been put on 20wt with 0 longevity issues as the UOA section proves it.

Every week... "Looking for a thick sided 20" (for warranty period) or "Highest HTHS 30wt" etc. etc. etc. so they aren't getting the message that is doesn't matter in what I would argue is going to be 99.9% of vehicle owners out there. It should be mandatory that they read the UOA high mileage UOA's FIRST before they can post about HTHS 30 that they "need"

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by Shannow
. . .
So they started looking at what happened, when viscosity modifying polymers were exposed to high shear rates in engines, and found that the polymers stretched out, and lost (part of) their thickening abilities, behaving as a thinner oil in the bearings.
. . .


A couple questions. First, and I may be mixing metaphors (certainly not different oils!

), but I recall reading about a phenomenon which involved the polymers, after be "stretched out" or unwound, in some cases will tightly align and "compact" with one another, with the effect being that the overall thickening effect of the VII is reduced or eliminated. Is this an aspect of the shearing process itself, is it something else -- or do I need to have my memory checked by a professional?

Another: I've heard a couple people suggest "optimum" HT/HS figures. Of course, this makes me wonder whether it's really possible to have a single "one size fits all" ideal level, or whether the "ideal" HT/HS ought to be determined for individual applications, or classes of applications? I have a hard time accepting that, for example, an old-school flat-tappet engine and a lightly loaded DOHC I-4 in a 2500# subcompact would really share the same "ideal" HT/HS. Your thoughts?

 

[Shannow]

Yes, you followed the footnote...

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Times have changed and although conceptually correct that chart would now show very little difference across the range of RPM, due to the much improved oil technology in the last 42 years.

Again the concept is correct but its application is almost obsolete. It's also why 0w40 oils are widely available from many of the major manufacturers. These new multiviscosty oils are not the same as Grampa's.


No, you are wrong on that issue...temporary shear is a permanent part of using multigrade oils. oils, except the rate unicorns that are multigrade by the nature of their basestocks (e.g. AMSOIL ACD).

It's inherent in using viscosity modifiers that you will get temporary shear...I'll demonstrate.
https://www.mobil.com/English-AU/Passenger-Vehicle-Lube/pds/GLXXMobil-1-0W40
KV40 - 70.8
KV100 - 12.9
HTHS - 3.6
Density at 15C - 0.8456

Take the KVs and density to 150C
Density at 150C - 0.745
KV 150 - 5.56.

If the oil was Newtonian, it's absolute viscosity would be 5.56*0.745 = 4.1 (about what you'd expect for a straight 50.

But the HTHS is 3.6, so in high shear locations, it's 13% thinner than it would be were the oil a Newtonian (non viscosity modified) oil.

EXACTLY as per the chart that I posted, and irregardless of the age of the test...it's still valid, and still present.

Have done some others in the table below, including Citgo's SAE 30 as a Newtonian Control...
So M1 0W40 is most highly (temporarily) sheared due to it's high amount of VII.
the others less so.
Ravenol 0W16 displays almost no VII effect, and as expected, Citgo SAE30 is Newtonian (as it must be).

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Shannow
But the HTHS is 3.6, so in high shear locations, it's 13% thinner than it would be were the oil a Newtonian (non viscosity modified) oil.


So what. Does this cause drastically shorter engine life?

If so, the magic engines in the UOA section with high mileage on 20wt's seem to running some sort of Unicorn oil I guess.

 

[dblshock]

0/40 is the new 5/30, keeps engine wear lower especially under adverse conditions like turbo heat, fuel dilution common in modern engines. You'd think they'd charge more for it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Where's the "empty junkyards" claims?

Regardless, as has been pointed out in these discussions many times, there are plenty of official studies that shows that higher higher HTHS oils do reduce overall engine wear.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by Shannow
But the HTHS is 3.6, so in high shear locations, it's 13% thinner than it would be were the oil a Newtonian (non viscosity modified) oil.


So what. Does this cause drastically shorter engine life?

If so, the magic engines in the UOA section with high mileage on 20wt's seem to running some sort of Unicorn oil I guess.

For crying out loud, can you stop with the rolleye's ryubbish, and stop pushing your inane points....read the title of the post.
read the OP's question
read my response to the OP's question, in the context in which it was asked.
Read the context of what I posted that statement and the tables...it was in response to a statement that the behaviour no longer happens, which is scientifically incorrect, and I was correcting it....

I know that you hate science, and all that scary facts and data rubbish that you want to replace with absence of lawsuits, and feeling.

And stop diverting threads with your drivel about magic and unicorns, followed by the smirk icon because you have a barrow that needs to be constantly polished and wheeled out every five minutes.

You keep trying to drag every technical discussion off into your la la land of feelings, wishes (no scary charts and data)....and I have no idea why.

 

[StevieC]

No I just live in the real world and in the real world using an oil with a higher HTHS than what the OE had in mind has no realizable benefit for 99.9% of owners out there but you guys make it seem as though not using something with ~3.5 in an application far lower is going to have some drastic wear effect on engines and that simply isn't the case and has lead to a weekly thread of "Looking for a thick sided 20wt" (Warranty), and "Looking for a 30wt with the highest HTHS" and "ACEA Specifications for XYZ Vehicle". Let alone all the CAFE bashing.

Over a decade with 20wt oils and no horror stores yet about decreased engine life and piles of folks here with lots of miles running it.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by dblshock
I just run the A3/B4 Edge and when the level rises I draw a qt. and replace half that with fresh 0/40. Can't understand why anyone wouldn't use this motor oil grade over the same priced wimpy w20.
That makes sense. I've told people to fill with 0w30 (like M1 AFE) instead of the Honda spec 0w20, and only fill to half-way between the Add & Full line, not all the way. Then, let the level rise.
If it still rises to much over the Full line on the dipstick, by all means draw some off and spruce it up with some fresh oil like you do.
If the fuel dilution is really bad, then, sure, M1 0w40 euro oil would be better than M1 AFE 0w30. I assume most people's fuel dilution isn't bad enough to call for 0w40.
Also, remember Schaeffer Moly EP #132 Oil Treatment is KV100=200cSt, so it could be used to top off some thin sump oil suffering from fuel dilution too.

For anybody wondering why HTHS & KV100 is so important, remember you don't want to run too far to the left on the Stribeck Curve excessively in various parts of the engine. The goal is to keep the viscosity right where Honda or others want it to be originally.

 

[caprice_2nv]

It sounds like you keep replying to a question that was never asked Stevie.

While I don't stress about this or even the fuel dilution in my carbureted Caprice...if I spend the time to read these threads and get real technical data out of it, I figure I might as well use what is proven in testing to be likely to reduce wear.

My decision has been made to switch to a 10w30 in the summer time and stick with 5w30 or 0w30 in the winter. It's not a big deal if I don't IMO but why wouldn't I if testing proves it's a good idea.