sweatr

Motor Oil 101
Chapter One

by AE Haas
I think it is time to go over passenger car automotive engine oils in detail. I will be writing several articles to be published soon so I will try to get some of it out here. I feel this is a very general topic for all car owners on this board.
This is a very difficult topic to comprehend. Everybody including good mechanics think they are experts in this field but few understand engine oils. Most of what I hear is the opposite of the truth. It is however easy to see how people get mixed up as there is always some truth to the misconception.
Please forgive me if I am too wordy or even verbose at times. I will be redundant for certain. This will be in areas that people have to hear things over and over again to get it right. Some will never be able to understand these concepts unfortunately. I base my thoughts on those whom I have been listening to in various automotive chat rooms and discussion with mechanics. I will try to minimize technical terms and be somewhat vague rather than exact. I will round and average numbers to make the point simple rather than mathematically exact. Thickness has the same meaning as viscosity. Viscosity is a measure of the resistance of a fluid (liquid or gas) to flow. Fluids with high viscosity, such as molasses, flow more slowly than those with low viscosity, such as water. Again, I am trying to explain general principals as I know them.More confusion occurs because people think in terms of the oil thinning when it gets hot. They think this thinning with heat is the problem with motor oil. It would be more correct to think that oil thickens when it cools to room temperature and THIS is the problem. In fact this is the problem. It is said that 90 percent of engine wear occurs at startup. If we are interested in engine longevity then we should concentrate our attention at reducing engine wear at startup.
Oils are chosen by the manufacturer to give the right thickness at the normal operating temperature of the engine. I will say this average oil temperature is 212°F, the boiling point of water. On the track that temperature is up to 302°F. It is important to realize that these are two different operating environments and require different oils.
I will discuss driving around town first. Everything I say will be based on these conditions. At a later time I will discuss track conditions. Everything I say will be as accurate as possible without looking everything up and footnoting. I am trying to be general not ultra specific.
One thing that is no longer important is the ambient temperature. Older automotive owner manuals often recommended one oil for the summer and another for the winter. This is still necessary for air cooled engines but is no longer a consideration in pressurized water cooled engines. These engine blocks are kept at around 212°F all year round. The oil is around the same temperature as well. This allows for a single grade oil all year round. Again, this is not the same as on the track where the coolant temperature is slightly higher and the oil temperature is much higher.
Please forget those numbers on the oil can. They really should be letters as AW-M, BW-N or CW-P. The fact that we are dealing with a system of numbers on the can makes people think that they represent the viscosity of the oil inside the can. The problem is that the viscosity of oil varies with its temperature. A “30” grade oil has a viscosity of 3 at 302°F ( 150°C ) and thickens to 10 at 212°F ( 100°C ). It further thickens to a viscosity of 100 at 104°F ( 40°C ) and is too thick to measure at the freezing point of 32°F ( 0°C ).
Oils are divided into grades (not weights) such as a 20, 30 or 40 grade oils. This represents the viscosity range at operating temperature. But it is NOT the actual viscosity as we shall see. The issue is that viscosity is temperature dependent. Let’s look at a 30 grade oil and how the viscosity of this grade of oil varies with temperature:
Temperature ( ° F )Thickness30232121010410032250( 30 grade oil: aka 30 “weight” oil )

The automotive designers usually call for their engines to run at 212°F oil and water temperature with an oil thickness of 10. This is the viscosity of the oil, not the weight or grade as labeled on the oil can. I want to stay away from those numbers as they are confusing. We are talking about oil thickness, not oil can labeling. This will be discussed later. Forget the numbers on that oil can for now. We are only discussing the thickness of the oil that the engine requires during normal operating conditions.
The engine is designed to run at 212°F at all external temperatures from Alaska to Florida. You can get in your car in Florida in September and drive zig-zag to Alaska arriving in November. The best thing for your engine would be that it was never turned off, you simply kept driving day and night. The oil thickness would be uniform, it would always be 10. In a perfect world the oil thickness would be 10 at all times and all temperatures.
If the thickness of oil was 10 when you got in your car in the morning and 10 while driving it would be perfect. You would not have to warm up your engine. You could just get in the car and step on the gas. There would be little wear and tear on your engine, almost none. Unfortunately the world is not perfect.
The night before when you drove home from work the car was up to the correct operating temperature and the oil was the correct thickness, 10. Over night the engine cooled to room temperature and the oil thickened. It is 75°F in the morning now (I do live in Florida). The oil thickness is now around 150. It is too thick to lubricate an engine designed to run with an oil having a thickness of 10.
Chapter Two
Share this:

• 
  
  
  How is this inaccurate son?.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

Yes..... Did you see what stealth posted? Keep reading, you don't need to post what you read, just read.

sweatr

You are correct in that I need to post in the relevant thread. My bad and will do in the future. I posted the above because being I was told I was wrong with no explanation I thought it was appropriate to post exactly what I read. Maybe you read different . I thought the title here was OIL and premix my bad.

sweatr

I have and have read all 10 chapters but one must admit it takes a re read or two to digest every thing. Just wondering....I went back and read many of your and the other dudes post and it seems in the beginning you guys were ok then ....what happened ?.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

I will PM my thoughts and some additional references. Don't take Dr. Haas article as the end all opinion on the subject. Rotories treat oil differently.

sweatr

I don't take A e Hass as the end all of opinions. You are correct that rotaries are different than the piston engine. But if you read the post of A e Hass you might agree that the article was a GENERAL statement of oil and how it works. You folks assume that I am representing this as the end all argument on oil, that sir is silly if you read all 10 chapters.
I also only posted the chapter one because I was attacked and told I am wrong with no explanation....So this is what I read. The first comment or attack as you have it was the assertion that the cs measurement does not exist and it does.10w-30 Oil at 212 degrees F is at 10cs and at cold or 75 degrees its some where around 100cs...what the hell is the attack about?. Are these not facts or what?. This whole thing was just to show that oil is thicker when cold and thinner a operating temperature, please tell me I am wrong again , but with some back up this time. You tell me my facts are wrong with out offering any of your own: confused:. Fair to say if you debunk some one on a public forum you should prove your point sir.

sweatr

Firstly , I haven't seen any PM from you on the subject, this was ment to be a general discussion on oil not specific?. I do not take Ae Hass as the end all of any thing, this is your assumption and you what they say about assume"Makes an *** out of u and me, Dah!. Stop assuming things and say something relevant man, stop attacking me" see#10 of the rules.
If you want to say some thing , then say it. Stop attacking me. Didn't you know that everyone has an opinion and if you disagree and attack me you are only attacking A e Hass not me....so what!. PLease tell me that viscosity and thickness are not the same thing please go ahaead and tell me science isn't science unless you guys say it.....Please sir get real. Now say some thing relevant to what Ae Hass has written. A e Hass will be published later this year according to him.

paimon.soror

iTrader: (15)

viscosity and thickness are not the same thing.

i said it.

edit: and if you need convincing, the simplest way one can explain that they are not the same is the fact that one is a dimensional measurement, while the other isn't. Not particularly in that order

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

, who is attacking you? I was going to PM you but honestly I don't care too any longer, figure it out for yourself.

Thank you Paimon.

sweatr

Ae Hass disagrees with you sir!. I showed you A e Hass article and you say it is not the same thing....well prove it son. Prove it ,,or do you really think that just because you said it , that it is true.....Please son, prove that viscosity and thickness are not related. If you can do that with proof that refutes A e Hass article and idea that viscosity and thickness are not related, then I respect that if you can. If you don't offer any of what you call facts then why is any one going to believe you just because you said it...man that's a laugh for sure, just believe you that's it right , no proof just believe you because you said it.

I showed you what A e Hass said ( Not me) but A e Hass, now show me some thing that is contrary sir. It's an old saying "Put up or shut up" don't just say "I said it ". NOw if you wish to walk on water I might be inclined to believe you on your spoken word(no proof). Other wise you seem to have stuck your foot in it.
Your so called proof is not by a statement by you son, play by your own rules" if you can't prove your point don't post it" I think you have seen that in reference to my post in the past, well it applies to you sir right now. If you can't offer any published written opinion by another expert then the statement applies here to you sir " If you can't prove what you say then don't post sir"
you sir have no business posting responses to any post , if you can not back up what you say.

sweatr

How easy just say I don't care now...Now you don't have to respond What a cop out dude, I see a pattern developing here. I still don't see any real published dispute or proof on A e Hass article I posted here ?.. Go back and re3ad your attack post or are you so jaded you don't realize you are not playing by your own rules here. This is reasl simple dude...I offered a idea that oil is thick when cold and thin when hot and that oil can and is measured in centisticks/CS. The only problem I see here is there is no offering from any of the attack team here( you know who you are) on the subject matter?.How self serving is it to say " I was going to PM you but honestly don't care any longer, figure it out for your self" Dude that is just really out there, you didn't offer any thing to me you just dismissed this because I don't believe you can put forth any thing to dispute A e Hass opinion. I think the mistake here is that you guys are attack then offer nothing in return and just simply dismiss me in a matter that leaves you an avenue to gracefully back out and keep your on line currency high may be hugh. I will continue to research and be sure when I have an examples that apply I will be sure to post some thing you can fact check or disagree with not a dismissive phrase as you offered up as your answer. Pretty lame dude pretty lame.

paimon.soror

iTrader: (15)

You may want to step back from the keyboard, and relax with the smilies ... you are getting lost in your own words.... so which is it ... are they "the same" or are they "related"

I can agree with you on only one of the two, but surely not both.

The answer lies in which of the two is only accurately measured with temperature as its variant.

tell me how something can be equal, when one measures as a dimension, and the other measures resistance. back to the drawing board you go.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

Sweatr,

You should really work on your grammar, it's hard to take you seriously with all the emoticons and blabbering.

There is no thickness index and you didn't offer an idea, you parroted what you read elsewhere. Unless you live in northern Russia, northern Canada or Antarctica then it does not f#$king matter if you run a 10,15, or 20W oil. All that really matters is how your oil of choice is performing (viscosity, fuel contamination, etc) at operating temperature over an oil change interval. And even then the formulation of the oil matters more than the numbers on the bottle. Viscosity and thickness are not the same thing. But what is more important than the oil you choose is that you allow your oil to fully warm up during each drive cycle and how often you change it.

Leave bottle of Mobil1 0W-30 and a bottle of Mobil1 15W-50 in your garage overnight. Then in the morning do a poor test and dump them both on the floor of your garage and you will see that there is no difference in thickness and that they both pour the same.

slvrstreak

iTrader: (3)

but then you will have a mess on your garage floor
ah-ha! I did not fall for your trick of deception 9k

slvrstreak

iTrader: (3)

honestly though how can you say two things are the same when they measure different things

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

Damn it, I thought for sure I would get a redneck or two with that trick.

slvrstreak

iTrader: (3)

Denny's probably in the garage pouring oil on the floor right now


sorry Denny

hoss -05

iTrader: (4)

I base my oil recommendation on the detailed analysis we have seen at SARX time after time from an independent lab we send our oil samples into. I personally dont care to an extent what brand or numbers are on the bottle. I have a target i want to see in my used oil and very few oils we have tried make the cut.


I'm not suggesting what we do is spot on or that people should blindly fallow what we do but its worked well and we have the test results to prove it. If someone thinks they have a better recommendation then me i'm all about it but show me why dont just quote some random article.

houstonrx8er

iTrader: (8)

9k, you are helping me clean my garage floor.

sweatr

Re-read the post. This is a general post not a specific one and viscosity and thickness do have a relationship and that is what A e Hass is asserting. This stuff isn't my work but the work of A e Hass. This was ment to spark a discussion not a witch hunt, unfortunately you nice gentlemen can only which hunt that's all you know...too bad for you. You guys used to be ok , I read all your early posts and what the hell happened to you foks?. Just take your own advice and re-re3ad the post and if you don't like what he wrote then send him a note and voice your opinion to him son. Re-read the post and try to at least pretend to be social like.. It is supposed to be s discussion, not a look at me thing you guys seem to worship with your stinky attitudes. I did offer an idea....It was the idea of A e Hass so go hassel him and give the good Doctor your what for , I am sure he will believe you. The article is what it is and if you don't agree with it soooooo what. It is just an article by A E Hass not me.

Like I said and even you said in the past "If you can't prove what you say don't post it....Well I hear a lot of noise from you but no post of proof from you" Put up or shut up". I posed an article and you sir haveonly posted your opinion and that sir isn't good enough, please post proof that viscosity and thickness have no relationship. I don't think you can. Your proof sir must come from some where else besides your "Opinion", your opinion sir isn't any bodys truth , so put up or shut up your opinion does not fly sir. Now go search the internet and try to prove that viscosity and thickness do not have a relationship, I submit to you sir it does have a relationship. I have showed you mine( and you disagree) now show me some thing beside your opinion or juist be quiet on the subject sir. Oh and lastly sir my grammer only serves to prove te point you are on a witch hunt ad not fact based as you attempt to set in place with your opinion and no proof of what you say. My grammar has nothing to do with this article. We ll know by reading posts all over this site that not everyone uses proper grammar including you sir , stop picking on stupid things and just prove your point with out your opinion. Prove that viscosity and thickness of motor oil has no relationship, give it a shot bud go ahead.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

So you see why oil threads don't survive typically.

I'm debating between deleting the off-topic oil discussion completely, or moving it to it's own thread. I generally don't like to delete an entire discussion, but I have a feeling i'd just be closing down whatever thread it got moved into.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

Just delete it, all this is in the oil thread already anyway.

paimon.soror

iTrader: (15)

he is just too ignorant to realize that no one is saying there is no relationship between visc. and thickness. Like a god damn parrot.

Mind you this was the same guy that 1 page earlier was yammering about a "thickness index" (must have missed that day in class) and even saying that the two were "the same".

*sigh*...

Just let him yap away with his fancy quotes and emoticons ... he only serves to entertain himself.

sweatr

With all due respect RIWWP this stuff needs to continue because I believe in my heart that contrasting beliefs and points of what we believe are facts need to be displayed and talked about because I thought this is what this site was for. If we don't go forward then these folk who constantly pick on silly things actually in the end result is that you have a site that is really run by proxy through bullying and not really discussing any thing of value. I posted that chapter one only because I was in my opinion attacked(#10) and even forgetting that , there were no facts posted by the attack team to give an opposing idea. I still challenge them to post there facts in disagreement with the assertation that oil thickness and viscosity do have a relationship and they keep saying it ddoes not. Well I have herd enough from this crowd about "If you can't prove it don't post" well I am saying prove your disagreement with some proof not your own opinion. But that aside , please if you will transfer this discussion to a new thread of it's own . I have 10 chapters to post and also a opposing set of ideas by another author. In short please let this continue in another thread. I have sent you the entire chapter one and I will gladly pm you the coming chapters for approval to post.

I just want to contribute to the site and I am attempting to do so with some resistance at least and that is cool with me , I get what is going on here at rx8club.com and these folks are not going to run me off never. I am researching every day to improve my knowledge to better enjoy my 8 and I want to keep posting the other 9 cchapters and let the folk who want to keep hunting me , iuts ok. Like I have said above repeatedly to the naysayers " Prove your opposition to the assertion of A e Hass that viscosity and thickness in motor oil have no relationship. I believe as well as A e Hass that it does. Please don't kill this just because the boys are restless , I can handle the baloney and respond with out being nasty like before, I understand who is who here now please don't kill this, it wiouldn't be fair to those who like a difference of opinion.
Thyanks you for your consideration on this.

RIWWP

iTrader: (2)

Sweatr, the problem is 3 fold:

1) This thread is about gas/oil premix. This means when you put oil into your gas tank to assist with lubrication of the engine's internal surfaces. 4-stroke science has no place here because no one in their right mind will put 4-stroke oil into their gas tank. Totally different properties than 2-stroke oil.

2) Even if this conversation was in the correct thread, they are not disagreeing with you on the relationship between 'thickness' and viscosity.

3) Even if this conversation was in the correct thread, the point that they are trying to make is that regardless of the viscosity or thickness of the oil as branded on the bottle, the only true thing that matters is the performance of that oil. 9k (among many in the community) has done extensive analytical testing on used oil of many brands and viscosities. The wear elements from the engine present in the oil is the guiding point of oil performance, and viscosity is not a major factor in that.


What argument can you present for me leaving the thread alone that solves all 3 of those points?