Honda Car Forum

Steve Bigelow wrote:

> <jmattis@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1114212471.808718.46710@f14g2000cwb.googlegro 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?

The more I learn, the more I question the validity of the 20/30/40 wt
method of measurement. Many of the European automakers have their
own standards for cars (incl GM's European division) which aren't
met by the SAE viscosities.

I was at AutoZone buying some filters for a Buick, and was curious
about this "German Castrol" 0W-30 that many VW owners are looking
for. What I saw was an API SL/CF oil with no "Energy Conserving"
mark and no "Starburst". It met a whole slew of European extended-
drain manufacturers' standards from BMW, Mercedes-Benz, VW, etc.
It's not an oil designed for fuel economy, but is technically still
a 0W-30 oil.

I think Honda would be wise to abandon their standard 5W-20
recommendation and come up with their own standard. I think it
would be one that could be met by some thinner 5W-30 or a thicker
5W-20. The oil marketers could simply label that their oil meets
Honda spec X, just like many state GM 4718M or BMW LL-01.

On 22 Apr 2005 08:47:59 -0700, jmattis@attglobal.net 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.
>
>This story is a tree hugger event.

Maybe - maybe not. Note the author "Ian Taylor is in the Automotive
Lubricants Group at Shell Global Solutions (UK)" Hey, maybe he's the
marketing geezer.:-) At any rate I'd say it's more likely the lubricants
divisions see new regs/specs as another opportunity to make extra $$...
just like the auto companies finally twigged that catalytic converters,
air-bags, crash safety structures, etc. etc. were all additional markup.

>Still sticking with 10W30.

Me too.:-) Let someone else be the guinea pig.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2005 08:47:59 -0700, jmattis@attglobal.net 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.
> >
> >This story is a tree hugger event.
>
> Maybe - maybe not. Note the author "Ian Taylor is in the Automotive
> Lubricants Group at Shell Global Solutions (UK)" Hey, maybe he's the
> marketing geezer.:-) At any rate I'd say it's more likely the
> lubricants divisions see new regs/specs as another opportunity to
> make extra $$... just like the auto companies finally twigged that
> catalytic converters, air-bags, crash safety structures, etc. etc.
> were all additional markup.
>
> >Still sticking with 10W30.
>
> Me too.:-) Let someone else be the guinea pig.

I'm still wondering if the SAE viscosity scales are outdated. For
instance, an XW-30 oil is one that has a viscosity of 9.3-12.5 cSt
at 100°C. The typical "energy conserving" 5W-30 is going to be
somewhere in the 10-10.5 range. I've heard from some sources that
certain European carmakers have designed their engines such that
they're most happy with an oil somewhere on the high end of 30
wt to 40 wt oils. I don't think there's a single oil that both
meets the BMW LongLife, or assorted VW standards and **also**
meets the API "Energy Conserving" standard.

I've heard tons about the ACEA A3 extended drain standard. After
looking at what does and doesn't meet the A3 standard, it almost
seems that an XW-30 oil has to be on the high end of the range
to meet said standard. What does meet it are some 0W-30 and 5W-30
oils that are so thick at operating temps that they don't qualify
for the API's "Energy Conserving" standard.

y_p_w wrote:
> I think Honda would be wise to abandon their standard 5W-20
> recommendation and come up with their own standard. I think it
> would be one that could be met by some thinner 5W-30 or a thicker
> 5W-20. The oil marketers could simply label that their oil meets
> Honda spec X, just like many state GM 4718M or BMW LL-01.

Read up:

<http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000388090.cfm?x=b2V1dRQ,0,w>

It's a report on possible alterations to SAE J-300, which is the
current SAE viscosity measurement scale (10W-30, etc). There seems
to be opinions that current SAE viscosity measurement is inadequate
to describe the viscosity needs of modern engines.

--quote--
"While J-300 has been in use many years, it is rigid. Consumers
don't understand it, it's difficult to modify to incorporate
technical advances in high quality base oils, and its awkward
grading system makes it difficult to include the influence of
engine oil viscosity on fuel efficiency," McMillan said.
--unquote--

On 26 Apr 2005 12:20:59 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 22 Apr 2005 08:47:59 -0700, jmattis@attglobal.net 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.
>> >
>> >This story is a tree hugger event.
>>
>> Maybe - maybe not. Note the author "Ian Taylor is in the Automotive
>> Lubricants Group at Shell Global Solutions (UK)" Hey, maybe he's the
>> marketing geezer.:-) At any rate I'd say it's more likely the
>> lubricants divisions see new regs/specs as another opportunity to
>> make extra $$... just like the auto companies finally twigged that
>> catalytic converters, air-bags, crash safety structures, etc. etc.
>> were all additional markup.
>>
>> >Still sticking with 10W30.
>>
>> Me too.:-) Let someone else be the guinea pig.
>
>I'm still wondering if the SAE viscosity scales are outdated. For
>instance, an XW-30 oil is one that has a viscosity of 9.3-12.5 cSt
>at 100°C. The typical "energy conserving" 5W-30 is going to be
>somewhere in the 10-10.5 range. I've heard from some sources that
>certain European carmakers have designed their engines such that
>they're most happy with an oil somewhere on the high end of 30
>wt to 40 wt oils. I don't think there's a single oil that both
>meets the BMW LongLife, or assorted VW standards and **also**
>meets the API "Energy Conserving" standard.

The SAE specs have their good points too - certainly until recently they
did not allow for any overlap at all: you could not sell as 5W-30 as a
10W-30 even if it fit in every other way. I'd hate to think we could end
up with a one-size-fits-all policy here.

>I've heard tons about the ACEA A3 extended drain standard. After
>looking at what does and doesn't meet the A3 standard, it almost
>seems that an XW-30 oil has to be on the high end of the range
>to meet said standard. What does meet it are some 0W-30 and 5W-30
>oils that are so thick at operating temps that they don't qualify
>for the API's "Energy Conserving" standard.

Yep, there's always been a dichotomy there - VW used to recommend 20W-50
al-year round not that long ago. I still have my '92 Integra shop manual
which specifies that 5W-30 in a GSR was good only up to a max of 32F
ambient temp. I also don't think you'll find Honda/Acura recommending
5W-20 for the NSX - last time I saw, it was still 10W-30 when 5W-30 was
being used in most of their other cars.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2005 12:20:59 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >I'm still wondering if the SAE viscosity scales are outdated. For
> >instance, an XW-30 oil is one that has a viscosity of 9.3-12.5 cSt
> >at 100°C. The typical "energy conserving" 5W-30 is going to be
> >somewhere in the 10-10.5 range. I've heard from some sources that
> >certain European carmakers have designed their engines such that
> >they're most happy with an oil somewhere on the high end of 30
> >wt to 40 wt oils. I don't think there's a single oil that both
> >meets the BMW LongLife, or assorted VW standards and **also**
> >meets the API "Energy Conserving" standard.
>
> The SAE specs have their good points too - certainly until recently
> they did not allow for any overlap at all: you could not sell as
> 5W-30 as a 10W-30 even if it fit in every other way. I'd hate to
> think we could end up with a one-size-fits-all policy here.

If you read the article I linked to, the proposed supplement to the
weight scales included a "triangle" representing additional performance
ratings. These were fuel economy increase (over the reference oil),
HTHS (high temperature high shear) performance, and cold weather
pumping temprature. Of course properly making an oil means trading
off some of that fuel economy for high shear performance (i.e. you've
got to make it thicker).

> >I've heard tons about the ACEA A3 extended drain standard. After
> >looking at what does and doesn't meet the A3 standard, it almost
> >seems that an XW-30 oil has to be on the high end of the range
> >to meet said standard. What does meet it are some 0W-30 and 5W-30
> >oils that are so thick at operating temps that they don't qualify
> >for the API's "Energy Conserving" standard.
>
> Yep, there's always been a dichotomy there - VW used to recommend
> 20W-50 al-year round not that long ago. I still have my '92
> Integra shop manual which specifies that 5W-30 in a GSR was good
> only up to a max of 32F ambient temp. I also don't think you'll
> find Honda/Acura recommending 5W-20 for the NSX - last time I saw,
> it was still 10W-30 when 5W-30 was being used in most of their
> other cars.

Well - there have been some who point to the A3 standard as a guide
to whether or not an oil is properly designed for longer drains. The
newer Mobil 1 EP oils in 5W-30/10W-30 still don't meet the ACEA A3
standard. Although they don't carry the "Energy Conserving" label,
I'm guessing that thickening the oil to meet ACEA A3 probably would
have resulted in lower fuel economy.

Doesn't a lot of that have to do with the performance of available
oils at a given time? The European carmakers seem to have gone
through the additional step of publishing their own standards and/
or publishing approval lists. While brand name can't really be
mandated in the US, I see no reason why there couldn't be a list
of "recommended" products.

Even GM is reactivating their low-temperature pumpability standard
(GM 6094M) and apparently recommending that owners use an oil
meeting that standard.

<http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000098055.cfm>

On 28 Apr 2005 11:03:18 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2005 12:20:59 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >I'm still wondering if the SAE viscosity scales are outdated. For
>> >instance, an XW-30 oil is one that has a viscosity of 9.3-12.5 cSt
>> >at 100°C. The typical "energy conserving" 5W-30 is going to be
>> >somewhere in the 10-10.5 range. I've heard from some sources that
>> >certain European carmakers have designed their engines such that
>> >they're most happy with an oil somewhere on the high end of 30
>> >wt to 40 wt oils. I don't think there's a single oil that both
>> >meets the BMW LongLife, or assorted VW standards and **also**
>> >meets the API "Energy Conserving" standard.
>>
>> The SAE specs have their good points too - certainly until recently
>> they did not allow for any overlap at all: you could not sell as
>> 5W-30 as a 10W-30 even if it fit in every other way. I'd hate to
>> think we could end up with a one-size-fits-all policy here.
>
>If you read the article I linked to, the proposed supplement to the
>weight scales included a "triangle" representing additional performance
>ratings. These were fuel economy increase (over the reference oil),
>HTHS (high temperature high shear) performance, and cold weather
>pumping temprature. Of course properly making an oil means trading
>off some of that fuel economy for high shear performance (i.e. you've
>got to make it thicker).

Sounds to me like "properly making an oil" is going to lead to extortionate
pricing. Hate to sound cynical but this is all tinkering with specs and
the lube companies appear to be manouvering to position themselves
tactically in the marketing war. The fractions of a mpg which can be
achieved through lubricant tampering are miniscule & irrelevant.

>> >I've heard tons about the ACEA A3 extended drain standard. After
>> >looking at what does and doesn't meet the A3 standard, it almost
>> >seems that an XW-30 oil has to be on the high end of the range
>> >to meet said standard. What does meet it are some 0W-30 and 5W-30
>> >oils that are so thick at operating temps that they don't qualify
>> >for the API's "Energy Conserving" standard.
>>
>> Yep, there's always been a dichotomy there - VW used to recommend
>> 20W-50 al-year round not that long ago. I still have my '92
>> Integra shop manual which specifies that 5W-30 in a GSR was good
>> only up to a max of 32F ambient temp. I also don't think you'll
>> find Honda/Acura recommending 5W-20 for the NSX - last time I saw,
>> it was still 10W-30 when 5W-30 was being used in most of their
>> other cars.
>
>Well - there have been some who point to the A3 standard as a guide
>to whether or not an oil is properly designed for longer drains. The
>newer Mobil 1 EP oils in 5W-30/10W-30 still don't meet the ACEA A3
>standard. Although they don't carry the "Energy Conserving" label,
>I'm guessing that thickening the oil to meet ACEA A3 probably would
>have resulted in lower fuel economy.
>
>Doesn't a lot of that have to do with the performance of available
>oils at a given time? The European carmakers seem to have gone
>through the additional step of publishing their own standards and/
>or publishing approval lists. While brand name can't really be
>mandated in the US, I see no reason why there couldn't be a list
>of "recommended" products.

There's no magic here - there are certain materials, basestocks, which are
available and certain additives which help enhance certain performance
aspects. From there, there are limits to what can be achieved. To me this
is all hot air from companies prepping themselves to make additional profit
out of regulations. As usual, first we'll have voluntarily applied new
specs... followed by new regs... probably in the name global warming...
blah... blah... blah. Statistics will be presented which show the "huge
potential benefits" but it's really all BS. I already feel a hand in my
pocket.:-)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2005 11:03:18 -0700, "y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >If you read the article I linked to, the proposed supplement to the
> >weight scales included a "triangle" representing additional
> >performance ratings. These were fuel economy increase (over the
> >reference oil), HTHS (high temperature high shear) performance, and
> >cold weather pumping temprature. Of course properly making an oil
> >means trading off some of that fuel economy for high shear
> >performance (i.e. you've got to make it thicker).
>
> Sounds to me like "properly making an oil" is going to lead to
> extortionate pricing. Hate to sound cynical but this is all
> tinkering with specs and the lube companies appear to be manouvering
> to position themselves tactically in the marketing war. The
> fractions of a mpg which can be achieved through lubricant tampering
> are miniscule & irrelevant.

The cost of making petroleum oils is going up with the cost of crude.
That being said, the price of oils in North America is still quite
reasonable. That $5 quart of Mobil 1 I might buy off the shelf at
Wal-Mart (that meets some European standards) is going to be about
3-4 times more in Europe.

I think one of the reasons why they want to go to this is because
the API specs are starting to become irrelevant for some carmakers.
BMW, VW, Mercedes-Benz and others are saying ignore the API quality
grades and SAE weight scales in favor of their own performance
standards. I'm not an expert, but I've learned enough to realize
that saying an oil is an SAE 5W-30 meeting API SM may not be
adequate for many carmakers. A 5W-30 synthetic oil suitable for
a typical Japanese-designed engine won't be the right choice for
a VW.

> >Doesn't a lot of that have to do with the performance of available
> >oils at a given time? The European carmakers seem to have gone
> >through the additional step of publishing their own standards and/
> >or publishing approval lists. While brand name can't really be
> >mandated in the US, I see no reason why there couldn't be a list
> >of "recommended" products.
>
> There's no magic here - there are certain materials, basestocks,
> which are available and certain additives which help enhance certain
> performance aspects. From there, there are limits to what can be
> achieved. To me this is all hot air from companies prepping
> themselves to make additional profit out of regulations. As usual,
> first we'll have voluntarily applied new specs... followed by new
> regs... probably in the name global warming... blah... blah... blah.
> Statistics will be presented which show the "huge potential benefits"
> but it's really all BS. I already feel a hand in my pocket.:-)

The materials are still improving. I researching the stuff in the
lubes publications, Mobil is developing a more advanced PAO
manufacturing process. Hydrocracking is still being improved.

>
> There's no magic here - there are certain materials, basestocks, which are
> available and certain additives which help enhance certain performance
> aspects. From there, there are limits to what can be achieved. To me
> this
> is all hot air from companies prepping themselves to make additional
> profit
> out of regulations. As usual, first we'll have voluntarily applied new
> specs... followed by new regs... probably in the name global warming...
> blah... blah... blah. Statistics will be presented which show the "huge
> potential benefits" but it's really all BS. I already feel a hand in my
> pocket.:-)


Interestingly enough, the improved base stock refining methods which have
been coming on line and continue to do so (GTL, gas-to-liquid, is the next
one coming along) have followed a learning curve similar to electronics.
Not only are the base stocks getting better, they are getting cheaper to
produce.

Have a look at this recent paper internal to ExxonMobil as one example:

http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate...generation.pdf

See page 7 where they say:

"Technology Paradox: Lowest cost process makes highest quality product"


John

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:41:06 GMT, "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> There's no magic here - there are certain materials, basestocks, which are
>> available and certain additives which help enhance certain performance
>> aspects. From there, there are limits to what can be achieved. To me
>> this
>> is all hot air from companies prepping themselves to make additional
>> profit
>> out of regulations. As usual, first we'll have voluntarily applied new
>> specs... followed by new regs... probably in the name global warming...
>> blah... blah... blah. Statistics will be presented which show the "huge
>> potential benefits" but it's really all BS. I already feel a hand in my
>> pocket.:-)
>
>
>Interestingly enough, the improved base stock refining methods which have
>been coming on line and continue to do so (GTL, gas-to-liquid, is the next
>one coming along) have followed a learning curve similar to electronics.
>Not only are the base stocks getting better, they are getting cheaper to
>produce.
>
>Have a look at this recent paper internal to ExxonMobil as one example:
>
>http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate...generation.pdf
>
>See page 7 where they say:
>
>"Technology Paradox: Lowest cost process makes highest quality product"

According to that paper, GTL does *not* produce something better than PAO,
rather something which *almost* approaches PAO in some respects at lower
cost... which is partly due to the use of "cheap natural gas" as a
feedstock. It's being proposed a competitor to the hydrotreated
petro-based lubes... which some lubricants companies are selling for close
to the price of a real (PAO) synthetic. Kind ironic really.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald