If you want an excellent read about oil, engine lubrication, and related issues, allow me to recommend the following site. It seems pretty exhaustive.
http://www.nordicgroup.us/oil.htm

 

I like the one about "Recreational Oil Changing". You know who you are.

Jim

 

I found a good link in the linked article, dealing with the issue of sludge. http://www.yotarepair.com/sludge%20article.html Keep in mind it's on a Toyota site, and was sponsored by Pennzoil, but it has some good information in it IMO.

 

Hmmm, that article has the following in it:
"Here is the surprise part: running an engine just one quart low on oil for about as long as some technicians work in one week (about 55 hours) can increase the viscosity, or the thickness, of the oil by over 1000%!!! I don't know many technicians, or car owners for that matter, who would like to run 5,000-30,000W oil in their car's engine. "

For me, this is in the 'even if it's true I don't believe it category'
Although the key word may be 'can', which doesn't necessarily mean it would.

 

Yeah, take it with a grain of salt. That part about the thickening, is probably BS. Although if you ran it low enough and left it in there long enough...

 

Ya know, if they'd say it can be twice as thick, I'd still find that a tad hard to believe, but I wouldn't comment on it. But 10x is a bit (?!) too much. , even if the engine takes only 3 quarts like my wife's Toyota. Mine takes 5, so I can presumably be 1 quart short with no warning light while on the smaller engine that can be a lot more significant, but the light would probably come on. Maybe I'll test the light when I change the oil on her car next time.

 

Thanks for the link, Tim!

Welcome to FTE and thanks for joining us in the Oil and Lubrication forum!

 

The author's math is very good also. 1000% is ten times, not 1000 times. Therefore starting with a 5w-30 times ten would be a 50w-300 not a 5,000w-30,000. I still don't believe that this statement is true.

 

I thought it was funny how the author decided to put his politics in the article.

 

TIM, thanks for the link. I enjoyed it, and will refer back to it, often, for future reference. Did anybody happen to read the THICKER IS BETTER MYTH? You know who you are. Ed.

 

the author seems to refer to no detergent oil a lot does he realize non dtergent has not been used in vehicles since 1929? and they did not have oil filters either he kkeps mentioning that non detergent oil used to clog up oil filters?where does he get some of these facts

 

"where does he get some of these facts?"

Ask him!<!-- / message -->

 

Actually, auto makers didn't specify detergent oil until 1964. So there was little reason for it to exist before then. 1964 was the first year vehicles were required to have positive crankcase ventilation.

I believe that's also the same time the API came out with their classification system. The first detergent oil was classed API SC. API SA/SB oils were classed retroactively. SA was straight mineral oil. SB was mineral oil with corrosion inhibitor.

 

I think it important to point out that this information was posted May 2002. There has been a lot of changes since that time. Some of the material just doesn't apply anymore. Good reading though, but you need to know that some of it is history and some of it has changed. He is very correct in stating that most folks change oil far too often and the practice is encouraged by the "big money". Todays engines employing lean burn technology and cylinder deactivation is allowing more miles between changes. Fuel injection has been the biggest contributor to the cleaner burning engines. Anybody remember that ALL driveways had a black oil spot where the car was parked? Don't see much of that anymore. Gasket materials have improved and it is keeping more dirt out than ever before. Have you looked at the air boxes and air filters on the newer engines? Huge by comparison to the old 2" tall x 12" round ones we used to have. Why the difference? To slow down the act of filtration thereby getting more dirt trapped. The air flows much slower thru the larger filters and it has more time to filter. Most air boxes will handle 7 times the volume of the maximum air the engine can consume. So folks that say they have installed an oiled cotton filter and got better performance aren't thinking. If you like the cleanable ones,great. But they do not add to the performance of an engine and if there is a gain, then something else was wrong to begin with.
It's a good read. Read it for what it is, dated material. It will give you an idea of what goes on but don't rely on it as gospel.

 

In California, closed PCV systems were required by the 1961 model year. It was an option going back to 1955 on Chevy, recommended for fleet vehicles that idle a lot doing door-to-door delivery work. I think the PCV stressed the oil more by trapping condensation in short trip driving. The tradeoff is that no dirt can enter, unlike the open breathers that were often used on engines that had no oil filter as well.

Before the 1964 API designations, "HD" oils were often specified. Those were the early detergent oils dating back to ?

The common myth was that if you started using HD oil on an engine that had used non-detergent, you would break loose sludge and clog oil passages. Mobil conducted extensive studies on this in the 1960s and disproved it entirely. Detergent/dispersant only prevented further buildup and did not remove anything. This is similar to the myths about synthetic oils today.

Jim