the future of motor oil?

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/2/7

jim beam wrote:
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/2/7

Shoving 0W20 down our throats to reduce C02 by millions of tonnes (its
a British story) seems to be the future.

Note that even 5W30 specs are more like 5W25 in actual grade, if there
were such a thing. Also interesting that this story proclaims oil
increases in viscosity with use. B.S., the modifiers break down and
the oil reverts to its true state, which is thin, not thick.

This story is a tree hugger event.

Still sticking with 10W30.

wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/2/7
>
> Shoving 0W20 down our throats to reduce C02 by millions of tonnes
> (its a British story) seems to be the future.
>
> Note that even 5W30 specs are more like 5W25 in actual grade, if
> there were such a thing. Also interesting that this story proclaims
> oil increases in viscosity with use. B.S., the modifiers break down
> and the oil reverts to its true state, which is thin, not thick.

Some "abuse" of oil is known to lead to oil thickening.

I know you're making up the "5W25" number, but there are variances
in the acceptable range for an XW-30 oil. The lower limit is 9.3
cSt at 100 =B0C, while the upper limit is 12.5 cSt at 100 =B0C. Mobil
1 5W-30 is 10.0, their "conventional" oil is 10.8, while the green
colored Castrol Syntec 0W-30 (AKA "German Castrol") is reported to
be somewhere over 12.

> This story is a tree hugger event.
>
> Still sticking with 10W30.

Some manufacturers (esp European) have come up with their own
approval lists or specs that are more than just the standard
(arbitrary) SAE weights. BMW LL-01 spec oil seems to be met
by a number of XW-40 oils, and some 0W-30/5W-30 oils that are
on the heavy end of 30 weight. The SAE scale is a very blunt
tool. An analogy would be that the manufacturer spec'ed a part
that weighs between 130 and 150 pounds, but the suppliers have
adopted a standard measurement of "light" from 120-140 pounds,
and "medium" from 140-160 pounds.

Agreed if you cook oil in a turbo and such it can thicken. Abuse was
not the standard set by the cited article, however. In fact, it seems
to set the stage for thinking that one can and probably should use a
lightweight oil, because it will thicken with time anyway. That's not
generally true, but the less informed might buy into it. I just think
this article is "greenie" propaganda. (And I am not painting the
poster, Jim Beam with that brush, it is an interesting article but I
think there is a subtext to it.)

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Agreed if you cook oil in a turbo and such it can thicken. Abuse was
> not the standard set by the cited article, however. In fact, it seems
> to set the stage for thinking that one can and probably should use a
> lightweight oil, because it will thicken with time anyway. That's not
> generally true, but the less informed might buy into it. I just think
> this article is "greenie" propaganda. (And I am not painting the
> poster, Jim Beam with that brush, it is an interesting article but I
> think there is a subtext to it.)

What percentage of the film strength of 30 weight oil does your engine
actually require to operate safely?

How many foam hits can a shuttle take, before it falls apart on
re-entry? How much radiation can a person suffer before getting
cancer?

Define "safely" -- do you want the car to last 50,000 miles; 100,000,
200,000, what?

We all take various forms of hits all the time, eventually they catch
up to you.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> How many foam hits can a shuttle take, before it falls apart on
> re-entry? How much radiation can a person suffer before getting
> cancer?
>
> Define "safely" -- do you want the car to last 50,000 miles; 100,000,
> 200,000, what?
>
> We all take various forms of hits all the time, eventually they catch
> up to you.

If you don't have a clue, why not just say so?

wrote:
> Agreed if you cook oil in a turbo and such it can thicken. Abuse was
> not the standard set by the cited article, however. In fact, it seems
> to set the stage for thinking that one can and probably should use a
> lightweight oil, because it will thicken with time anyway. That's not
> generally true, but the less informed might buy into it. I just think
> this article is "greenie" propaganda. (And I am not painting the
> poster, Jim Beam with that brush, it is an interesting article but I
> think there is a subtext to it.)
>
subtext? only subtext i can think of is questioning why the brits are
publishing this stuff. what happened to research over here?

Oh sh*t, you're on to me. I don't have a clue what all the various
needs of an engine is, but I do know that the amount of allowable
contact, and the possible film strength varies a lot at different
points within the engine. The metal components will vary too, so with
all these variables there's no meaning behind the question that you
asked. There WILL be metal-to-metal contact in the valve train at
times. Also at the top ring/cylinder. And even in crankshaft to
bearings when lugging an engine.

wrote:

> Agreed if you cook oil in a turbo and such it can thicken. Abuse was
> not the standard set by the cited article, however. In fact, it seems
> to set the stage for thinking that one can and probably should use a
> lightweight oil, because it will thicken with time anyway. That's not
> generally true, but the less informed might buy into it. I just think
> this article is "greenie" propaganda. (And I am not painting the
> poster, Jim Beam with that brush, it is an interesting article but I
> think there is a subtext to it.)

No - but the API Sequence tests are purposely designed to thicken
the oil. For most people the shearing down of VI improver is
probably going to be the bigger issue.