Re: [MBZ] 0W40 M1 not adequate?
on 10/1/06 11:09 AM, Mitch Haley at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Frederick wrote: Multi-viscosity oils are rated xWy. The W is weight, an old designation for viscosity. I thought the W was Winter, specifying that it was measured at a colder temperature than the regular viscosity rating. The winters have it: http://www.chevron.ca/ProductsServices/Retail/MotorOilLabel.htm Mac
Re: [MBZ] 0W40 M1 not adequate?
PF opines: 0 weight oils are too thin, in my humble opinion, for any diesel. Too much pressure on the journal on the compression stroke, not enough film strength, even for a synthetic like Mobil 1 snip I believe the 0 weight oils are intended to give small gasoline engines a bit better milage from lower oil pump resistance, not something I'd like to try in a diesel!For small gasoline engines..better mileage... Lessee now: Porsche Carrera GT $440,000 5.7 liter V-10 604hp @8000 rpm 205mph 0-62 mph 3.9 sec FACTORY FILL: MOBIL1 0W40 Perhaps you should send a note to Porsche AG, just to let them know? RLE
Re: [MBZ] 0W40 M1 not adequate?
And a compression ratio of what, 12:1? My point is the much higher compression ratio (hence higher loading) and film strength in the crankpin journal bearing. My engines were designed long before 0 wt oils were available, I'll stick with higher cold viscosity oil, thank you very much. Engine longevity is secondary to hp output on those cars anyway Peter
Re: [MBZ] 0W40 M1 not adequate?
Peter Frederick wrote: And a compression ratio of what, 12:1? My point is the much higher compression ratio (hence higher loading) and film strength in the crankpin journal bearing. But that would have more to do with the 40 part than the 0W part, right? I thought the W part of the designation had more to do with the low temperature pour point than the lubricating qualities when the engine is hot.
Re: [MBZ] 0W40 M1 not adequate?
And while we are at it, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/35011 On 9/30/06, David Brodbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Frederick wrote: And a compression ratio of what, 12:1? My point is the much higher compression ratio (hence higher loading) and film strength in the crankpin journal bearing. But that would have more to do with the 40 part than the 0W part, right? I thought the W part of the designation had more to do with the low temperature pour point than the lubricating qualities when the engine is hot. -- Proudly marching to the beat of a different kettle of fish.
Re: [MBZ] 0W40 M1 not adequate?
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:49:23 -0700 David Brodbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Frederick wrote: And a compression ratio of what, 12:1? My point is the much higher compression ratio (hence higher loading) and film strength in the crankpin journal bearing. But that would have more to do with the 40 part than the 0W part, right? I thought the W part of the designation had more to do with the low temperature pour point than the lubricating qualities when the engine is hot. It also relates to the lubricating properties when the oil is cold. Craig
Re: [MBZ] 0W40 M1 not adequate?
Multi-viscosity oils are rated xWy. The W is weight, an old designation for viscosity. The x is the cold weight, the y is the hot weight -- in other words, the oil has the viscosity of say, 10Wt oil at zero and 40Wt oil at 300 degrees. My concern is shear and film strength on the crankpin journal, as this is where the stresses are greatest in diesels, due mainly to the high compression pressure. Peter
Re: [MBZ] 0W40 M1 not adequate?
Peter Frederick wrote: Multi-viscosity oils are rated xWy. The W is weight, an old designation for viscosity. I thought the W was Winter, specifying that it was measured at a colder temperature than the regular viscosity rating.
Re: [MBZ] 0W40 M1 not adequate?
I'll note http://www.utc.fr/~tthomass/Themes/Unites/unites/infos/huile/ Publication_Oil_Sequences.pdf#search=%22ACEA%20documentation% 20Laboratory%20tests%22 Where one can actually understand what the oils have to meet in order to achieve a certain ACEA rating On 1-Oct-06, at 8:09 AM, Mitch Haley wrote: Peter Frederick wrote: Multi-viscosity oils are rated xWy. The W is weight, an old designation for viscosity. I thought the W was Winter, specifying that it was measured at a colder temperature than the regular viscosity rating.
