...The point is that even if you save 1% on fuel how much higher will the engine failure rate be? If the engine failure rate also increases by 1% how much fuel/energy does it take to manufacture and replace 1% of the engines. A ballpark guess is a net loss. Same broken logic as the electric or alcohol crowd IMO. If you're going to scientifically analyze something make sure you take ALL the variables into account. Otherwise it is just agenda feelgood baloney.
0w16 t0 0w8
- Thread starter double vanos
- Start date
- Status
Why stop at 0W-08 ? For the ultimate in fuel economy and saving the planet, go WD-40.
Only if these enhanced additive low viscosity oils are used in motors that are engineered with parts that allow them to work well... And in low output motors that also do not typically run all that hard either.
No where near everyone will have a vehicle fit for these exotic low viscosity oils. Likely those who live and stay in highly urbanized areas would be good candidates for these types of oils. Other people living in distant areas with longer travels will not likely be the best fit for these oils.
No where near everyone will have a vehicle fit for these exotic low viscosity oils. Likely those who live and stay in highly urbanized areas would be good candidates for these types of oils. Other people living in distant areas with longer travels will not likely be the best fit for these oils.
Originally Posted by Kawiguy454
...The point is that even if you save 1% on fuel how much higher will the engine failure rate be? If the engine failure rate also increases by 1% how much fuel/energy does it take to manufacture and replace 1% of the engines. A ballpark guess is a net loss. Same broken logic as the electric or alcohol crowd IMO. If you're going to scientifically analyze something make sure you take ALL the variables into account. Otherwise it is just agenda feelgood baloney.
Finally someone with some reality based sense!!
We need more people like you managing our nations!
...The point is that even if you save 1% on fuel how much higher will the engine failure rate be? If the engine failure rate also increases by 1% how much fuel/energy does it take to manufacture and replace 1% of the engines. A ballpark guess is a net loss. Same broken logic as the electric or alcohol crowd IMO. If you're going to scientifically analyze something make sure you take ALL the variables into account. Otherwise it is just agenda feelgood baloney.
Finally someone with some reality based sense!!
We need more people like you managing our nations!
Originally Posted by loneryder
Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions regulations for passenger cars and commercial vehicles are being tightened in a number of countries across the globe as governments work to meet their carbon reduction obligations.
This says it all. They are referring to the Paris Peace accords which provides cover for politicians of the signee countries to raise taxes. France dramatically raised fuel taxes and that is why you have the "yellow jackets" demonstrations every weekend for months. Canada is getting ready to raise fuel taxes and taxes on anything manufactured in Canada, a country that already has extremely high taxes. Their citizens have not found this out yet. At present, Canada's economy is at a standstill.....0% growth. What do you think is going to happen to their economy then. This is one of the reasons that GM closed the Canadian plants first.
This is why the liberals are so upset about the US leaving the Paris Accords.
I don't even know where to begin with this
So I won't
Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions regulations for passenger cars and commercial vehicles are being tightened in a number of countries across the globe as governments work to meet their carbon reduction obligations.
This says it all. They are referring to the Paris Peace accords which provides cover for politicians of the signee countries to raise taxes. France dramatically raised fuel taxes and that is why you have the "yellow jackets" demonstrations every weekend for months. Canada is getting ready to raise fuel taxes and taxes on anything manufactured in Canada, a country that already has extremely high taxes. Their citizens have not found this out yet. At present, Canada's economy is at a standstill.....0% growth. What do you think is going to happen to their economy then. This is one of the reasons that GM closed the Canadian plants first.
This is why the liberals are so upset about the US leaving the Paris Accords.
I don't even know where to begin with this
So I won't
Originally Posted by yowps3
Originally Posted by Kawiguy454
...The point is that even if you save 1% on fuel how much higher will the engine failure rate be? If the engine failure rate also increases by 1% how much fuel/energy does it take to manufacture and replace 1% of the engines. A ballpark guess is a net loss. Same broken logic as the electric or alcohol crowd IMO. If you're going to scientifically analyze something make sure you take ALL the variables into account. Otherwise it is just agenda feelgood baloney.
Finally someone with some reality based sense!!
We need more people like you managing our nations!
It ain't like old times Billy.
Originally Posted by Kawiguy454
...The point is that even if you save 1% on fuel how much higher will the engine failure rate be? If the engine failure rate also increases by 1% how much fuel/energy does it take to manufacture and replace 1% of the engines. A ballpark guess is a net loss. Same broken logic as the electric or alcohol crowd IMO. If you're going to scientifically analyze something make sure you take ALL the variables into account. Otherwise it is just agenda feelgood baloney.
Finally someone with some reality based sense!!
We need more people like you managing our nations!
It ain't like old times Billy.
This source [table 7.7] (https://books.google.com/books?id=g...onepage&q=Sequence%20IVB&f=false) has fuel dilution as being 10-15% at the end of the test, which is a tad higher than most UOAs we've seen posted here. I seriously doubt that this test simply means that as long as engines grind up no more than 400 ppm iron in a typical UOA, you'll do fine on 0w-8 oil.
Originally Posted by yowps3
Originally Posted by Kawiguy454
...The point is that even if you save 1% on fuel how much higher will the engine failure rate be? If the engine failure rate also increases by 1% how much fuel/energy does it take to manufacture and replace 1% of the engines. A ballpark guess is a net loss. Same broken logic as the electric or alcohol crowd IMO. If you're going to scientifically analyze something make sure you take ALL the variables into account. Otherwise it is just agenda feelgood baloney.
Finally someone with some reality based sense!!
We need more people like you managing our nations!
Nice try, but I suspect that very few properly maintained engines, meaning an infinitesimal percentage, fail before 200K miles. Anyone care to differ on that point?
Originally Posted by Kawiguy454
...The point is that even if you save 1% on fuel how much higher will the engine failure rate be? If the engine failure rate also increases by 1% how much fuel/energy does it take to manufacture and replace 1% of the engines. A ballpark guess is a net loss. Same broken logic as the electric or alcohol crowd IMO. If you're going to scientifically analyze something make sure you take ALL the variables into account. Otherwise it is just agenda feelgood baloney.
Finally someone with some reality based sense!!
We need more people like you managing our nations!
Nice try, but I suspect that very few properly maintained engines, meaning an infinitesimal percentage, fail before 200K miles. Anyone care to differ on that point?
Toyota will move all their engines to 0W8 in no time, regardless that they were developed when 15W40 was norm.
Anything, just not to invest more in engines, bcs. "reliability."
Anything, just not to invest more in engines, bcs. "reliability."
Originally Posted by Kjmack
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
Did a quick calculation of 400 ppm of iron in motor oil. At 400 ppm of iron, there would be 0.335 grams/qt.
In 5 qts of oil there would be 1.675 grams of iron, which would be a cube of iron 2.1 mm on each side, or equivalent to about 1.5 paper clips.
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
Did a quick calculation of 400 ppm of iron in motor oil. At 400 ppm of iron, there would be 0.335 grams/qt.
In 5 qts of oil there would be 1.675 grams of iron, which would be a cube of iron 2.1 mm on each side, or equivalent to about 1.5 paper clips.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Kjmack
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
Did a quick calculation of 400 ppm of iron in motor oil. At 400 ppm of iron, there would be 0.335 grams/qt.
In 5 qts of oil there would be 1.675 grams of iron, which would be a cube of iron 2.1 mm on each side, or equivalent to about 1.5 paper clips.
I get it , 400ppm does not seem like a lot when you put it in that context. But how many paper clip s can a engine loose before it turns into a sloppy oil burner with no power ? Do you think the cylinder wall's and rings would be made out of harder metals to try to combat material loss ?
Originally Posted by Kjmack
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
Did a quick calculation of 400 ppm of iron in motor oil. At 400 ppm of iron, there would be 0.335 grams/qt.
In 5 qts of oil there would be 1.675 grams of iron, which would be a cube of iron 2.1 mm on each side, or equivalent to about 1.5 paper clips.
I get it , 400ppm does not seem like a lot when you put it in that context. But how many paper clip s can a engine loose before it turns into a sloppy oil burner with no power ? Do you think the cylinder wall's and rings would be made out of harder metals to try to combat material loss ?
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Kjmack
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
Did a quick calculation of 400 ppm of iron in motor oil. At 400 ppm of iron, there would be 0.335 grams/qt.
In 5 qts of oil there would be 1.675 grams of iron, which would be a cube of iron 2.1 mm on each side, or equivalent to about 1.5 paper clips.
When you put it into perspective, that's a lot of iron. I once asked here [for S&G] how many ppm of iron an engine can shed before it's toast. I realize it depends on a lot of things including the engine, size etc., no one answered. The bottom line is even though we're talking PPM the number is finite, and it might not be as big a number as some might think. An oil allowing 400 ppm of iron which is considered acceptable is not something I want in my sump. I'll burn the extra 1% of fuel too.
Originally Posted by Kjmack
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
Did a quick calculation of 400 ppm of iron in motor oil. At 400 ppm of iron, there would be 0.335 grams/qt.
In 5 qts of oil there would be 1.675 grams of iron, which would be a cube of iron 2.1 mm on each side, or equivalent to about 1.5 paper clips.
When you put it into perspective, that's a lot of iron. I once asked here [for S&G] how many ppm of iron an engine can shed before it's toast. I realize it depends on a lot of things including the engine, size etc., no one answered. The bottom line is even though we're talking PPM the number is finite, and it might not be as big a number as some might think. An oil allowing 400 ppm of iron which is considered acceptable is not something I want in my sump. I'll burn the extra 1% of fuel too.
Originally Posted by paulri
According to this link (https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-ivb-test.pdf, it is 200 hours long--which is not unheard for an OCI (200 x 50 MPH is 10,000 miles), but still I'd like to know if this accurately reflects what would go on in 200 hours of driving--something tells me that that's not the case. Its probably much more rigorous than the typical engine sees, like the NOACK test to determine volatility.
The PDF link in your post shows the 200 hrs consists of 24,000 cycles consisting of the 30 second profile defined in the table. Very short (7 seconds) ramping up & down in RPM from 800 to 4300 RPM with an 8 second hold at 800 and 4300 RPM, and at pretty low torque levels, so not even close to full power loads on the engine.
So yeah, the testing profile doesn't represent any normal driving cycle. They were only looking at wear on the valve lifter buckets that the cam lobes were actuating.
According to this link (https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-ivb-test.pdf, it is 200 hours long--which is not unheard for an OCI (200 x 50 MPH is 10,000 miles), but still I'd like to know if this accurately reflects what would go on in 200 hours of driving--something tells me that that's not the case. Its probably much more rigorous than the typical engine sees, like the NOACK test to determine volatility.
The PDF link in your post shows the 200 hrs consists of 24,000 cycles consisting of the 30 second profile defined in the table. Very short (7 seconds) ramping up & down in RPM from 800 to 4300 RPM with an 8 second hold at 800 and 4300 RPM, and at pretty low torque levels, so not even close to full power loads on the engine.
So yeah, the testing profile doesn't represent any normal driving cycle. They were only looking at wear on the valve lifter buckets that the cam lobes were actuating.
Reading comprehension is key:
Quote
As a result, OEMs are looking right across the vehicle for fuel economy improvements. Powertrain electrification is one of the headline-grabbing options being explored. But, despite the anticipated investment in charging infrastructure and battery technology improvements, it is likely that by 2035 some 80% of vehicles sold will still contain an internal combustion engine (ICE). Strong growth is expected in battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicle sales post 2035. But, looking right out as far as 2050, around 60% of vehicles sold are still expected to contain an ICE - predominantly in the form of plug-in and conventional gasoline hybrids.
They're talking about thinner oils used in lower horsepower petrol engines tacked onto a battery pack as a hybrid. No one is mandating this goes into your 87' Camaro mullet-wagon...
Quote
As a result, OEMs are looking right across the vehicle for fuel economy improvements. Powertrain electrification is one of the headline-grabbing options being explored. But, despite the anticipated investment in charging infrastructure and battery technology improvements, it is likely that by 2035 some 80% of vehicles sold will still contain an internal combustion engine (ICE). Strong growth is expected in battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicle sales post 2035. But, looking right out as far as 2050, around 60% of vehicles sold are still expected to contain an ICE - predominantly in the form of plug-in and conventional gasoline hybrids.
They're talking about thinner oils used in lower horsepower petrol engines tacked onto a battery pack as a hybrid. No one is mandating this goes into your 87' Camaro mullet-wagon...
Originally Posted by edyvw
Toyota will move all their engines to 0W8 in no time, regardless that they were developed when 15W40 was norm.
Anything, just not to invest more in engines, bcs. "reliability."
I would bet serious money that Toyota's engine failure rate with their "sewing machine erl'" 0W-20 is well below that of VW using their manly 5W-40's...
And I'm not a fan of either...
Toyota will move all their engines to 0W8 in no time, regardless that they were developed when 15W40 was norm.
Anything, just not to invest more in engines, bcs. "reliability."
I would bet serious money that Toyota's engine failure rate with their "sewing machine erl'" 0W-20 is well below that of VW using their manly 5W-40's...
And I'm not a fan of either...
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
One thing that is great about them making engines capable of 0w16 and 0w8 is they are really reducing friction between components and designing them to run on barely any oil film separation with a lower HTHS requirement.
I'm sure you know by now after all these threads discussing the relationship between oil viscosity and minimum oil film thickness (MOFT), that "barely any film separation" (ie, very small MOFT) means these super thin oils are going to be relying heavily on anti-wear additives because there will be way more meta-to-metal contact as they keep lowering the HTHS and MOFT.
They alos seem to be changing the wear limit requirements in the oil testing to get around this fact. What's happening is they are going for 0.5~1.0% improvement in fuel mileage at the expense of more engine wear and shorter engine life. Cars are becoming more an more disposable as time goes on.
I'm not arguing that, what I'm saying is that they would have made some considerations in the design of the engine so that it can handle the 16 or 8 weight oil over say a 200 mile lifespan but if you were to say use a 20wt instead you would benefit from not requiring to rely on the additives and might see better engine life than say a 20wt oil in an engine designed for a 20wt because we know that 2.6 HTHS (of a 20wt oil) seems to be the lowest tolerable before wear accelerates like crazy. At least given modern oils and engine designs.
Originally Posted by StevieC
One thing that is great about them making engines capable of 0w16 and 0w8 is they are really reducing friction between components and designing them to run on barely any oil film separation with a lower HTHS requirement.
I'm sure you know by now after all these threads discussing the relationship between oil viscosity and minimum oil film thickness (MOFT), that "barely any film separation" (ie, very small MOFT) means these super thin oils are going to be relying heavily on anti-wear additives because there will be way more meta-to-metal contact as they keep lowering the HTHS and MOFT.
They alos seem to be changing the wear limit requirements in the oil testing to get around this fact. What's happening is they are going for 0.5~1.0% improvement in fuel mileage at the expense of more engine wear and shorter engine life. Cars are becoming more an more disposable as time goes on.
I'm not arguing that, what I'm saying is that they would have made some considerations in the design of the engine so that it can handle the 16 or 8 weight oil over say a 200 mile lifespan but if you were to say use a 20wt instead you would benefit from not requiring to rely on the additives and might see better engine life than say a 20wt oil in an engine designed for a 20wt because we know that 2.6 HTHS (of a 20wt oil) seems to be the lowest tolerable before wear accelerates like crazy. At least given modern oils and engine designs.
Last edited:
Great. I got the impression that some of the posters here in this thread were putting 400 ppm of iron in the context we often see here at BITOG--of a UOA after an OCI, and not in the context of a very demanding test of oil.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
The PDF link in your post shows the 200 hrs consists of 24,000 cycles consisting of the 30 second profile defined in the table. Very short (7 seconds) ramping up & down in RPM from 800 to 4300 RPM with an 8 second hold at 800 and 4300 RPM, and at pretty low torque levels, so not even close to full power loads on the engine.
So yeah, the testing profile doesn't represent any normal driving cycle. They were only looking at wear on the valve lifter buckets that the cam lobes were actuating.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
The PDF link in your post shows the 200 hrs consists of 24,000 cycles consisting of the 30 second profile defined in the table. Very short (7 seconds) ramping up & down in RPM from 800 to 4300 RPM with an 8 second hold at 800 and 4300 RPM, and at pretty low torque levels, so not even close to full power loads on the engine.
So yeah, the testing profile doesn't represent any normal driving cycle. They were only looking at wear on the valve lifter buckets that the cam lobes were actuating.
Two years ago I re-powered my Great Lakes boat from a DD 6V71 to a DD 60 Series. I still have the old 6V71 on the side of my barn tarped up. I now want to get some 0W8 and fill the old two stroke diesel with it and give it all it's got. See what happens.
Originally Posted by Michael_P
Two years ago I re-powered my Great Lakes boat from a DD 6V71 to a DD 60 Series. I still have the old 6V71 on the side of my barn tarped up. I now want to get some 0W8 and fill the old two stroke diesel with it and give it all it's got. See what happens.
Not sure what that would prove. I mean, I could fill the engine sump of my car with top of the line gear oil, or put engine oil into my differential, and I'm guessing the results would "condemn" both types of oils.
Two years ago I re-powered my Great Lakes boat from a DD 6V71 to a DD 60 Series. I still have the old 6V71 on the side of my barn tarped up. I now want to get some 0W8 and fill the old two stroke diesel with it and give it all it's got. See what happens.
Not sure what that would prove. I mean, I could fill the engine sump of my car with top of the line gear oil, or put engine oil into my differential, and I'm guessing the results would "condemn" both types of oils.
- Status
Similar threads
