Recent Topics
ZF Aftermarket, Why Change Your ATF
by BMWTurboDzl. 07/16/19 08:10 PM
Goodyear Wrangler DuraTrac
by NHRATA. 07/16/19 08:05 PM
5 qt Castrol GTX Magnatec 5w-30 $10.30 on Amazon
by gallydif. 07/16/19 07:59 PM
My new rig - 1987 Ford Econoline 27' Glendale RV
by caprice_2nv. 07/16/19 07:44 PM
Air Compressor OCI?
by Vern_in_IL. 07/16/19 07:35 PM
Looking for an SUV
by dgunay. 07/16/19 07:29 PM
Castrol GTX Magnatec 5w30
by Envoyguy. 07/16/19 07:21 PM
2019 Subaru Dual X-Mode
by buster. 07/16/19 06:36 PM
Wear Metal Max?
by tsm750. 07/16/19 05:54 PM
Harbor Freight 25% off Thurs - Sunday
by JC1. 07/16/19 05:52 PM
80% Furnace exhaust silencer?
by PandaBear. 07/16/19 05:10 PM
Pennzoil Ultra on Sale
by Nyati. 07/16/19 04:39 PM
Not All Mid-Grade Blended At the Pump
by RayCJ. 07/16/19 04:30 PM
Determining if car battery has much life left
by paulri. 07/16/19 02:47 PM
kohker oil recomendation
by 1978elcamino. 07/16/19 02:44 PM
Rear Diff Seal Leak?
by Pike51. 07/16/19 02:31 PM
Using synthetic to clean a crankcase
by NavyVet88. 07/16/19 02:26 PM
Next Project: 1968 Cub Cadet Model 72
by Phishin. 07/16/19 02:14 PM
Mother's CMX
by rooflessVW. 07/16/19 01:54 PM
Newest Members
MBhuntington, captainfloss, Lyndol, Belczek, Bronco628
68681 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
125 registered members (4WD, 9050lx, 2010Civic, 2009Edge, aba4430, 12 invisible), 2,172 guests, and 20 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics291,966
Posts5,014,167
Members68,681
Most Online2,967
Mar 10th, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Hop To
Page 6 of 6 1 5 6
Re: Going by HTHS [Re: caprice_2nv] #5020572
02/22/19 08:39 PM
02/22/19 08:39 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 25,014
ON, Canada eh?
StevieC Offline
StevieC  Offline

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 25,014
ON, Canada eh?
Originally Posted by caprice_2nv
Originally Posted by StevieC
I intend to drive the van until the wheels come off which should be far past what a normal person will keep their vehicle for which will make the "worry" about using 0w40 in 5w20 application irrelevant.


It's pretty clear that no amount of facts or test results that don't agree with your opinion will change your mind on the subject.

Btw, the highway driving you do that racks up the miles that fast creates much less wear than doing 300-400k miles over 35-40 years (for example my daily driver and what I hope to get out of it). So making a choice based on real test results (instead of Stevie's opinion from the UOAs he's seen here) would likely make more of a difference in my case. I also have the unknown wear already put on by the first few owners over 27 years of probably the cheapest conventional oil to worry about.

And the vehicles over the past decade filled at Jiffy Boob with 5w20? Guess the OE's should shorten warranties on the 0w16 Camry and the vehicles in the future coming with 0w8. smirk2

Last edited by StevieC; 02/22/19 08:40 PM.

'18 Caravan - 36k 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: Going by HTHS [Re: StevieC] #5020592
02/22/19 08:53 PM
02/22/19 08:53 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,300
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,300
PNW
Originally Posted by StevieC
And the vehicles over the past decade filled at Jiffy Boob with 5w20? Guess the OE's should shorten warranties on the 0w16 Camry and the vehicles in the future coming with 0w8. smirk2


With respect to 20
16/20 = 80% life.
8/20 = 40% life.

J/K LoL ... grin2

Re: Going by HTHS [Re: ZeeOSix] #5020593
02/22/19 08:55 PM
02/22/19 08:55 PM
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 25,014
ON, Canada eh?
StevieC Offline
StevieC  Offline

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 25,014
ON, Canada eh?
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
And the vehicles over the past decade filled at Jiffy Boob with 5w20? Guess the OE's should shorten warranties on the 0w16 Camry and the vehicles in the future coming with 0w8. smirk2


With respect to 20
16/20 = 80% life.
8/20 = 40% life.

J/K LoL ... grin2

To some here they think this literally. LOL


'18 Caravan - 36k 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: Going by HTHS [Re: CR94] #5020636
02/22/19 09:38 PM
02/22/19 09:38 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,538
Ohio
TurboLuver Offline
TurboLuver  Offline

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,538
Ohio
Originally Posted by CR94
Rein, not reign or rain! (That metaphorical reference has to do with steering horses, not with royalty.)


lol, sorry my accidental eggcorn rubbed you the wrong way.

Originally Posted by CR94
Only as thick as necessary to eliminate insufficient viscosity as a significant factor in vehicle life.


I understand that, what I am questioning is the specified viscosity range.

Re: Going by HTHS [Re: JLTD] #5020713
02/22/19 11:03 PM
02/22/19 11:03 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,876
BC, Canada
userfriendly Offline
userfriendly  Offline

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,876
BC, Canada
My go-to summer oil for my LML Duramax is 50/50 Duron SAE30 & SAE 40.

40C 110
100C 12.7
150C 3.8


Back in the day, Duramax listed SAE 30 and 10W30 as optional grades. Then the horsepower and torque was increased and the 30 grades were dropped.

The 2017-2019 L5P has redesigned rod bearings, but again the torque and horsepower is higher. (T910, HP 445). The two grades listed in the owner's manual are 5W40 and 15W40 depending on ambient.

Typically the HTHS on those two grades are between 3.8 and 4.3

My mono-grade blend has the lowest KV100C that yields the minimum 3.8 HTHS required.

Why do chipped and deleted diesels often drop their cranks on the pavement?

Maybe it's because 3.8-4.3 HTHS is no longer sufficient to float the loaded rod bearing with the added torque.

Re: Going by HTHS [Re: userfriendly] #5021009
02/23/19 10:36 AM
02/23/19 10:36 AM
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,338
CO
JLTD Offline OP
JLTD  Offline OP

Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,338
CO
Originally Posted by userfriendly


Why do chipped and deleted diesels often drop their cranks on the pavement?

Maybe it's because 3.8-4.3 HTHS is no longer sufficient to float the loaded rod bearing with the added torque.


Excellent thought....a pumped up diesel putting out 1,200 ft-lbs (1626 Nm) on a system manufactured for 1/2 that is bound to need a little help with boundary layer film strength.


I use the overseas manual to choose my oil viscosity.

Using AMSOIL

Hers: 2008 Jeep Liberty 149k, SS5w30/Amsoil

His: 2015 4Runner 55k, SS 5w20/Amsoil

Re: Going by HTHS [Re: StevieC] #5021080
02/23/19 11:56 AM
02/23/19 11:56 AM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,709
Fort Lauderdale, FL
DoubleWasp Offline
DoubleWasp  Offline

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,709
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Originally Posted by StevieC
I think I'm going to go back to 5w20 when my 0w30 OCI is done. I have enough miles in a short amount of time it will be a perfect test case to prove there is nothing wrong with 20wt and lower HTHS that is still within the limits of the OE specification.

Heck I'll even do UOA's along the way with the Wix $10 kits for trending.


I don't understand why this is even a thing.

2015_PSD and I both ran "severe service" conditions using 20 weight oil in our Ford trucks.

I went quite a few steps over the deep end by using Mobil's 5000 mile conventional oil for more than 9000 miles, on the second OCI of a previously installed filter. During the OCI, whenever my truck was not towing 2 tons over it's tow rating, it was being driven very hard by me.

2015 towed 8000 lbs routinely. We both subjected our trucks to this in summer heat. Both of our trucks well beyond 100k miles.

We both produced UOA results beating that of many Ford 5.4s driven under much better conditions, doing half the miles over an OCI.

20 weight oil rarely gets such a torture test.

It's not a debate. 20 weight oil can be simultaneously subjected to a long and horrible life in a heavy vehicle towing even heavier vehicles and overachieve anyway.

The only thing that is possibly a debate at this point is if OEMs are recommending 20 weight oils for engines that really aren't engineered for a 20 weight oil. There's no argument otherwise.


07 Lincoln Navigator M1 0w-40/FU
68 Charger R/T / Supercharged 440 VR1/DBL7349
07 Ram 3500 4x4 / Cummins 6.7 /DBL7349
17 Maserati GranTurismo Cabrio
Re: Going by HTHS [Re: userfriendly] #5021088
02/23/19 12:00 PM
02/23/19 12:00 PM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,709
Fort Lauderdale, FL
DoubleWasp Offline
DoubleWasp  Offline

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 6,709
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Originally Posted by userfriendly
My go-to summer oil for my LML Duramax is 50/50 Duron SAE30 & SAE 40.

40C 110
100C 12.7
150C 3.8


Back in the day, Duramax listed SAE 30 and 10W30 as optional grades. Then the horsepower and torque was increased and the 30 grades were dropped.

The 2017-2019 L5P has redesigned rod bearings, but again the torque and horsepower is higher. (T910, HP 445). The two grades listed in the owner's manual are 5W40 and 15W40 depending on ambient.

Typically the HTHS on those two grades are between 3.8 and 4.3

My mono-grade blend has the lowest KV100C that yields the minimum 3.8 HTHS required.

Why do chipped and deleted diesels often drop their cranks on the pavement?

Maybe it's because 3.8-4.3 HTHS is no longer sufficient to float the loaded rod bearing with the added torque.


To be fair, the Duramax crankshaft issues are hardly an oil issue. If we are to believe many Duramax gurus, it's a firing order issue.


07 Lincoln Navigator M1 0w-40/FU
68 Charger R/T / Supercharged 440 VR1/DBL7349
07 Ram 3500 4x4 / Cummins 6.7 /DBL7349
17 Maserati GranTurismo Cabrio
Re: Going by HTHS [Re: StevieC] #5021100
02/23/19 12:11 PM
02/23/19 12:11 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 996
Ontario Canada
caprice_2nv Online content
caprice_2nv  Online Content

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 996
Ontario Canada
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by caprice_2nv
Originally Posted by StevieC
I intend to drive the van until the wheels come off which should be far past what a normal person will keep their vehicle for which will make the "worry" about using 0w40 in 5w20 application irrelevant.


It's pretty clear that no amount of facts or test results that don't agree with your opinion will change your mind on the subject.

Btw, the highway driving you do that racks up the miles that fast creates much less wear than doing 300-400k miles over 35-40 years (for example my daily driver and what I hope to get out of it). So making a choice based on real test results (instead of Stevie's opinion from the UOAs he's seen here) would likely make more of a difference in my case. I also have the unknown wear already put on by the first few owners over 27 years of probably the cheapest conventional oil to worry about.

And the vehicles over the past decade filled at Jiffy Boob with 5w20? Guess the OE's should shorten warranties on the 0w16 Camry and the vehicles in the future coming with 0w8. smirk2


Warranty is short enough. I didn't see anyone saying that using a 20 weight isn't good enough to go the warranty period or even a short life of 200k or 300k. You're still not commenting on what I said at all.


84 Olds Cutlass - 350 Olds
83 Chevy Caprice - 305 Sbc
79 Honda CX500
Re: Going by HTHS [Re: JLTD] #5021107
02/23/19 12:20 PM
02/23/19 12:20 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 996
Ontario Canada
caprice_2nv Online content
caprice_2nv  Online Content

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 996
Ontario Canada
Btw my mom has gone 220k miles on her Taurus 3.5 with 5w20. Of course it's been highway driving and 3k mile intervals (I didn't tell them they had to change that frequently - so no need to comment on that). "Easy on oil" engines like this or your Pentastar aren't convincing anyone of anything.

This subject has been brought up mostly because of direct injection and or turbo engines. Not old Ford's that lasted forever on 5w20.

Let everyone discuss what is "best" for the engine and not just what is "good enough". Once you're at 400k miles and a bearing spins it's not like you can rewind time and switch weights or OCI or whatever. If you know you'll be happy to buy something new and scrap the old one at that time then it doesn't matter at all. But for some people it might.


84 Olds Cutlass - 350 Olds
83 Chevy Caprice - 305 Sbc
79 Honda CX500
Re: Going by HTHS [Re: JLTD] #5021840
02/24/19 07:58 AM
02/24/19 07:58 AM
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 420
montreal ,canada
madeej11 Offline
madeej11  Offline

Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 420
montreal ,canada
Originally Posted by JLTD
Originally Posted by userfriendly


Why do chipped and deleted diesels often drop their cranks on the pavement?

Maybe it's because 3.8-4.3 HTHS is no longer sufficient to float the loaded rod bearing with the added torque.


Excellent thought....a pumped up diesel putting out 1,200 ft-lbs (1626 Nm) on a system manufactured for 1/2 that is bound to need a little help with boundary layer film strength.

And how does unnecessarily high hths equate to boundary layer film strength?

Re: Going by HTHS [Re: madeej11] #5021965
02/24/19 10:18 AM
02/24/19 10:18 AM
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,338
CO
JLTD Offline OP
JLTD  Offline OP

Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,338
CO
Originally Posted by madeej11
Originally Posted by JLTD
Originally Posted by userfriendly


Why do chipped and deleted diesels often drop their cranks on the pavement?

Maybe it's because 3.8-4.3 HTHS is no longer sufficient to float the loaded rod bearing with the added torque.


Excellent thought....a pumped up diesel putting out 1,200 ft-lbs (1626 Nm) on a system manufactured for 1/2 that is bound to need a little help with boundary layer film strength.

And how does unnecessarily high hths equate to boundary layer film strength?


Maybe go back through and read the entire thread; Shannow and oil_film_movies put out some really good information that will answer your question.

"Unnecessarily high hths...." is simply inflammatory....as one member states in his signature: as thin as possible, as thick as necessary.

I'm not saying that anyone should go for maximum HTHS.


I use the overseas manual to choose my oil viscosity.

Using AMSOIL

Hers: 2008 Jeep Liberty 149k, SS5w30/Amsoil

His: 2015 4Runner 55k, SS 5w20/Amsoil

Re: Going by HTHS [Re: madeej11] #5022316
02/24/19 03:48 PM
02/24/19 03:48 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,300
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,300
PNW
Originally Posted by madeej11
Originally Posted by JLTD
Originally Posted by userfriendly

Why do chipped and deleted diesels often drop their cranks on the pavement?

Maybe it's because 3.8-4.3 HTHS is no longer sufficient to float the loaded rod bearing with the added torque.

Excellent thought....a pumped up diesel putting out 1,200 ft-lbs (1626 Nm) on a system manufactured for 1/2 that is bound to need a little help with boundary layer film strength.

And how does unnecessarily high hths equate to boundary layer film strength?


You want both film thickness and film strength.

Film thickness is what keeps moving parts from contacting each other. HTHS is related to how much film thickness you'll get from the base oil/viscosity under extreme temperature and shearing conditions.

Film strength can be described as the lubricant’s ability to lessen the effects of friction and control wear by means other than the film thickness. The film strength is dependent on the wear and friction-​control additives in the base oil.

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30835/lubricant-film-strength

Re: Going by HTHS [Re: JLTD] #5024380
02/26/19 12:46 PM
02/26/19 12:46 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,876
BC, Canada
userfriendly Offline
userfriendly  Offline

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,876
BC, Canada
If we were to take a 50s or 60s designed V8, triple the power output from its original design, maybe add NOS which if brought in at low RPM drastically increases torque, would an engine oil with a higher HTHS than originally specified be necessary to keep the bearings and journals separated?

Could the oil pressure be increased instead of running a thicker oil?

Could the bulk oil (sump) temperatures be lowered instead of using a thicker oil?

Granted, thicker engine oils produce more heat from fluid friction, so an oil cooler would not be a bad idea if and when running thicker oils.

Re: Going by HTHS [Re: userfriendly] #5024400
02/26/19 01:11 PM
02/26/19 01:11 PM
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4,672
MN
oil_film_movies Offline
oil_film_movies  Offline

Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4,672
MN
Originally Posted by userfriendly
If we were to take a 50s or 60s designed V8, triple the power output from its original design, maybe add NOS which if brought in at low RPM drastically increases torque, would an engine oil with a higher HTHS than originally specified be necessary to keep the bearings and journals separated?
Yes. Temperature in the rings & the gudgeon pin went up, needing more HTHS to maintain lubrication.

Originally Posted by userfriendly
Could the oil pressure be increased instead of running a thicker oil?
With a huge power increase, yes more oil pressure, maybe 20% more with triple the power to help cool the parts. Still need a thicker oil though.

Originally Posted by userfriendly
Could the bulk oil (sump) temperatures be lowered instead of using a thicker oil?
Yes, cooler oil is thicker, and even when hitting the hot pistons, its useful to start out cooler.

Page 6 of 6 1 5 6
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

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