Page 1 of 1

engine oil... what weight ? / viscosity

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:31 pm
by guzzla
looking at running a full synthetic engine oil in my petrol 80s for something different but while the gregorys manual specifies 15w/40 or 20w/60 all the full synthetics are 0w/40 or 5w/50. is it ok to use these or is there a brand that is more suitable.

being twincam figured thinner oil would be better but is this too thin etc ?

also heading north (deserts etc) for some time so not sure if its ok in that situation.

thanks in advance, regards,
nathan

ps: search reveals much about oils but not this specific Q.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:12 pm
by 460cixy
toyota recomend a grade and type of oil for a reasion if you plan on going in to the deseart or work it hard in sand you want 20/60 from the get go. 15/40 would do the job fine too if its winter. DONT use synthetic oil un less its recomended! if it was any good toyota would tell you to use it. and avoid anything friction modifyed

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:29 pm
by rick130
5w-40 is NOT thinner than an equivalent 15W-40 at operating temp, in fact there may be f%ck all difference at 0*C, and some 5W-40's are thicker than some 15W-40's at 0*C.
An SAE viscosity is a range, actual viscosity is measured in centistokes (cSt) eg an xW-40 must fall between 12.5 cSt and 16.3 cSt @ 100*C (most apear to fall @ 14-15cSt)
A 0W-xx or 5W-xx is able to pump/flow at much lower temps than a 15W-xx. Pumping viscosity at low temps is measured in centiPascals (cP) and a 0W-xx cannot exceed 3250 cP @ -30*C , a 5W-xx must not exceed 3500 cP at -25*C, and a 15W-xx cannot exceed 3500 cP @ -15*C.

Here's some specs for a few different oils at various temps

Mobil Delvac 1 5W-40. 14.8 cSt @ 100*C. pour point -45*C
Castrol RX Super 15W-40. 14.5 cSt @ 100*C pour point -27*C
Redline 15W-40. 15.1 cSt @ 100*C. pour point -45*C
Penrite HPR5 5W-40. 15.1 cSt @ 100*C. (no pour point given)
Shell Rimula Ultra 10W-40. 14.6 cSt @ 100*C. pour point -30*C
Castrol Magnatec 10W-40. 14.6 cSt @ 100*C. pour point <-35*C

yet at 0*C we get

D 1= 1066 cSt
RX = 1358 cSt
RL = 1122 cSt
HPR= 1350 cSt
RU = 0809 cSt
Mag = 1182 cSt

a 10W-40 (Shell Rimula Ultra) is actually thinner than both 5W's, and a 15W (Redline) is thinner than the 10W Magnatec and the Penrite HPRD5 at 0* !

It's only when you get down to North American type winter temps that the 5W-40's really show an advantage in pumpability.

HPR5 has a cranking pressure (cp) @ -30*C of 5719, yet
Magnetec has a cp of 7000 @ a warmer -25*C.
The only other directly comparable number was for the older CH-4 version of Delvac 1 which had a cp of 3250 @ -25*, and 20,000 @ -35*.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:32 pm
by rick130
DONT use synthetic oil un less its recomended! if it was any good toyota would tell you to use it. and avoid anything friction modifyed
:?

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:50 pm
by liftkit8
DO NOT USE SYNTH. OIL UNLESS THE CAR IS STOLEN AND YOU WANT TO HURT ITS INTERNALS.otherwise your 80s insides will look like a bucket of smashed crabs .

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 10:56 pm
by 460cixy
ok so that covers cold climate. so whats the story when the mercury rises. im not going to claim im a drip under presure here but so far in my 10 years in the mechanical trade i have not heard anything outstanding about changeing to synthetic oil and friction modifyed has allways been bad news not that you hear much of it now days it was more of an 80's fad

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:45 am
by guzzla
thanks guys, by all accounts it seems best to stick with what ive got so thats what il do.

rick130 - very informative thankyou, though i cant help but think youve been waiting for someone to ask this question for some time, you seem to have done ur research.

cheers.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:23 pm
by Nev62
While on the topic of Oils, is the Repco home-branded diesle 15-40 ok? $23 for 5lt aint too bad. :?:

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:02 pm
by rick130
460cixy wrote:ok so that covers cold climate. so whats the story when the mercury rises. im not going to claim im a drip under presure here but so far in my 10 years in the mechanical trade i have not heard anything outstanding about changeing to synthetic oil and friction modifyed has allways been bad news not that you hear much of it now days it was more of an 80's fad
A bloke I know who runs a large truck fleet has crunched the numbers, done the miles and found he is in front $ wise over the life of his rigs using full syn diesel oil and tranny and diff lubes, but he has to run it to at least 96,000km each oil change in the engines, and 3-400,000km in the g/boxes and diffs to make it viable. The difference between a really good full syn and a really good mineral oil is pretty minimal these days, according to the experts I've talked to.
MTU in Brissy pulled one of his DD60 series engines down last year after 1,000,000km running on Delvac 1 as a promotion and all tolerances/clearances were within new spec. There was minimal sludge. He also said they don't bother with some sort of valve train adjustment they always had to do at 250,000km.
His trucks run all the way through the top end and they just use the same 5W-40 oil, regardless of ambient.

Friction modifiers are used in damn near all oils, it's a standard part of the additive package. If you really feel like having a read, I pnched this from another site where it was posted by an oil blender.
Oil soluble friction modifiers - once called friction reducers - have been used many years by the lubricant industry. Many products made use of friction reducers:
- Automatic Transmission Fluids (ATF's or those designed for smooth clutch engagement)
- Limited Slip Gear Oils for limited slip differentials and transaxles
- Multipurpose tractor fluids for wet brakes
- engine oils

There are also many other, lesser-known products, also containing friction modifiers in the form of animal fats, vegetable oils, sulpherized olefin coplymers, and esters.

Such products made use of friction modifiers as a way to meet performance requirements calling for smooth transitions from static to dynamic conditions and vice versa, as well as for reduced squawk, chatter, noise, frictional heat and start-up torque.

In the seventies, some gear oil additives were found to reduce frictional heat and gear operating temperatures under extreme load conditions while eliminating chatter in limited slip differentials. It was thought these same additives might be used in engine oils to accomplish the same function.

The ability to reduce friction and sometimes wear, over and above that provided by the base lubricant's viscosity, has been called "oiliness" or "lubricity." However, both of the latter terms are now considered obsolete. Early experimenters found that the ability of animal or vegetable fats and acids strengthened the tenacity of the oil films when incorporated in lubricating oils. These experimenters later found that the esters of vegetable or animal esters could be synthesized and produced from alcohols and acids of basic chemical compounds; what we call today as "Group V" lubricants. Their effectiveness was often rated in terms of "film strength," an expression that still remains in use.

Much confusion has abounded in the relationship between Anti-Wear (AW) or Extreme Pressure properties, and Friction Modifiers (FM). Both friction modifiers and Anti-Wear compounds both operate in the Boundary lubrication regime. AW additives are among the type of compounds that provide good boundary lubrication. Such materials as ZDDP, sulfurized fats and esters, organometallic compounds (such as Molybdenum dithiophosphates, Molybdenum dithiocarbamates, Antimony dithiocarbamates) have shown their ability to build and maintain strong boundary lubrication films under severe load conditions and heat. However, with the exception of second-generation gear oils, the older first-generation AW additives had little FM capabilities.

The critical difference between AW/EP additive films and FM films is in their mechanical properties. AW/EP films are semiplastic deposits which are hard to shear off. Thus, under shearing conditions, their coefficient of friction is moderately to high. The exceptions are the organometallic compounds listed above. Friction modification films consist of orderly, close-packed arrays of multimolecular "whiskers," loosely adhering to each other. The outer layers are sheared-off easily, allowing for low coefficient of friction. The phenomena can be described as a deck of plastic coated playing cards lying on the table and sliding off the top card easily.

Conversely, AW/EP films work by protecting the mating metal surfaces from asperities physically gouging the opposite surface. When a hydrodynamic film of oil is ruptured, this layer of AW/EP material protects the mating surfaces from catastrophic failure.

For some sense of scale, here are some further analogies:
1. The Coefficient of Friction (CF) of unlubricated surfaces is 0.5 and higher. In physical simulation, the process resembles the resistance of dragging an irregular rock over irregular rocky ground.
2. The CF for of friction of W/EP films is about 0.1 to 0.2. In simulation, it would resemble dragging a more or less flat stone over a flat rock.
3. The CF for a friction-modified film is about 0.01 to 0.02, compared to ice skating.
4. The CF of fully fluid films in hydrodynamic lubrication is about 0.001 to 0.006 or less. It can be compared to hydroplaning.

The preferred film is of course the hydrodynamic film. This is to followed by the friction-modified mode of operation, followed by an AW/EP regime. When high speeds or low loads are present, it is easy to maintain the hydrodynamic regime. When the speed falls, however, or the load rises above a critical point, the hydrodynamic regime breaks down and then it would be very desirable to be able to glide smoothly into a friction modification mode of operation. If no friction modification has been provided, the system defaults to a AW/EP regime. So friction modification and AW/EP is a logical method to widen the range of effectiveness of the lubricating film. Friction Modification depends much on the mechanism of contact (geometry) and molecular construction of the FM.

FM's may be produced from a number of chemicals:
- long-chain carboxylic acids and their derivatives including salts,
- long-chain phosphoric or phosphonic acids and their derivatives
- long-chain amides, imides, and derivative
- specially prepared esters and esters of base oils.

Some of the acids used to make the salts or esters may be phenylstearic, stearic, oleic, heptanoic, benzoic, and sebacic.

The configuration of the molecule (molecular structure) of FM's determines how many molecules are adsorbed on the surface. The slimmer molecules make stronger films because they allow closer packing. The base oil chain length also affects the strength of the adsorbed molecule. Different FM's are required for different base oils, and the interaction of FM's with other additives have to be investigated as well. The "concentration" of FM's is important as well. But only so much concentration will prove effective. A concentration above a certain point may show no improvement, so cost/concentration/effectiveness has to be evaluated during tests.

Fuel economy formulations involving FM's have to be selected on the following basis:
- FM properties
- dosage or treatment levels
- chemistry (chlorine, phosphorous, nitrogen, boron, ester type, etc)
- toxicity
- safety in handling
- oil solubility
- effect on metals, seals, and other engine materials
- possibility of synergism or antagonism
- acidity or alkalinity
- compatibility with other additives
- raw material availability and costs
- ease and cost of manufacturing
- patent coverage.

FM's can be employed in different forms in an additive package for a specific formulation. It can be added by itself without any other function, or may be part of molecule in a detergent (such as a sulfonate) or as part of a Viscosity Improver or antioxidant.

Example of an FM/Detergent additive may be a long-chain calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfonate, preferably one long chain of the benzene ring.

Since FM's are surface-active materials, and as such, compete with other useful additives, care must be taken in their selection and concentration in any fully formulated lubricant.

*Adapted from a paper by Papay, of the Ethyl Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri.

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:06 pm
by pongo
Castrol RX super is only $80 for 2o litres at the cross roads road house on the way out of liverpool.