Oil type for 2014 Sierra 5.3

Grumpy Bear · July 21, 2022

2 hours ago, customboss said:

If an engine is designed to handle 2.6 HTHS and that protects above MOFT that engine can last a long time with whatever the SAE calls that bottled oil. 0w8,0w16,0w20 etc.

Using higher HTHS than an engine design requires just drags on cooling and oil flow in the most critical applications.

:banghead:

That first paragraph reads hard. MOFT...Minimum Oil Film Thickness. We are hair splitting. MOFT dynamically is a function of load, velocity and viscosity. The Hersey number; which brings it full circle to Stribeck. A motor "designed' to handle a 2.6 HTHS must use an oil that at prevailing conditions delivers that minimum which assures MOFT exist. It's a condition not a specification. No need to overcomplicate a hammer.....unless your English Viscosity in the Hersey equation is indeed temperature dependent and that temperature is set by the HTHS test requirement the motor is designed around.

NONE of the lighter oils you mention; BY SPECFICATION; are 2.6 cP HTHS oils.

An motor designed for a 2.6 WILL NOT do just fine on less.

Now having said that, HTHS specifications are MINIMUMS and yes some base oils do provide a higher value while at the same time hitting all other viscosity dependent value targets. Red Line HP is a prime example of a 5W20 that EXCEEDS the HTHS numbers for SAE30! MPT the same. HOWEVER this does not mean that this is true for all base oils/brands. They only have to meet minimum. There is no maximum. By your argument Red Line HP 0W20 would create problems with heat and fuel efficiency. It has an HTHS of 2.9...good enough to meet the 30W requirement. MPT 0W20 is well over the 30W spec, 3.2 cP. AMSOIL use to be before the changed formulation and starting letting chemicals do viscosities work.

Yea, yea, higher HTHS viscosity creates more heat and less fuel economy. A distinction without a difference for MOST. Not every motor is on the verge of dying the black death nor sludge ridden to the point of failure. Stating the extreme AS the normal is not useful and entirely misleading. An increase in HTHS also has wear benefits regardless of surface finish. Yea, yea...rationally small but motors don't wear in one cycle but tens of millions of cycles. Even a slight increase is many many miles further down the road. There is more spread between ACEA service classes for the same SAE 5W30 than there is between 20W and 30W. Should I conclude that some 5W30's will damage my motor because HTHS is to high? I think not.

Measured over 158K miles in my motor there is less than 5 F difference between 0W20 and 10W30 in bulk oil temperatures and roughly 2 mpg top to bottom.

Spurshot · July 21, 2022

2 hours ago, mikeyk101 said:

Oh my, my poor wittle brain is now hurting from the information overload!!! Me, I will just stick with 0W20 as it is recommended and seems to work just fine. And even though I do know how to change the oil and do it for other stuff, I still just bring my Silvy to the dealer and have them do it as it's not much more expensive than doing it on my own. They also rotate the tires at the same time which saves me the trouble of doing it myself. And since I still have the GM ESP in effect for 3 more years and another roughly 50,000 miles, this is a good way to document that it is getting done.

But this thread has presented a lot of very interesting information. Oil threads are usually the kiss of death and doesn't take much for them to go sideways...

Yes, they can go sideways. But, if people keep it respectful, these kinds of technical discussions on forums can be some of the best threads for revealing things to the layperson.

16LT4 · July 21, 2022

On my Bimmer, I usually run 0w-40 Castrol FS. After selling my wife's Jetta, I had some 5w-40 Castrol leftover, so I used it. I had UOAs performed on both oils, and the 0w-40 came back better. Wouldn't ya know it, but the 0w was thicker at operating temp than the 5w? Why? Different base stocks; the 0w is a step up. When it comes to any oil discussion, remember it isn't just the viscosity, but the brand, and also the oil within the brand (as with the Castrol). On my car, now at 190k miles, the 5w was noticeably rougher, and despite being marginally more viscous in sub-zero temps, I'd receive "low oil" warnings with it in the winter. Not low pressure, but low level; the engine doesn't have an oil dipstick but instead uses an electronic level sensor. On the next oil change, switched back to 0w-40, and no more warnings. My low level warnings never reappeared, despite running in even colder temps; neither did the occasional cold-start lifter tick. So, either 0w or 5w can make the difference either in viscosity or base stock. I've included both UOAs below on those oils. My SWAG was that the 5w- was thick enough to stay in the head before draining back, yielding the "1 qt low" warnings. I wasn't 1 quart low, as measured when I drained the oil. That, and after the oil warmed (in the same weather) there were no such warnings.

I work on a ship powered by 4- 20litre I-6 marine diesels. They redline at 1700rpm and spend their entire lives at 1600, with frequent full-throttle moves at the dock in inclement weather. Each engine puts out ~800 hp and torque measured in the thousands. It is nearing 20k hours on this set of engines, which if you try to compare to a car averaging 35 mpg, amounts to 700,000 miles. Oil doesn't get consumed between changes; we've had failures on turbos and manifolds (each cylinder has a head that weighs 150 lbs), but oil-related issues are basically nill. Not bad for engines that live at near full-throttle, running uphill their entire lives. We use Mobil Delvac on those. Oil samples are taken on every oil change.

On my Silverado, I switched to 5w-30 on the last oil change; it was a step-up improvement on Ford 5.4s to help mitigate oil pressure issues on those as well that required 5w-20. I instantly noticed a quieter idle when hot, especially at the drive-thru, including from the HPFP. I'd prefer a 0w-30, of appropriate base stock, and may do that when I find one.

Humorous anecdote: I'd been running M1 5w-40 in my air cooled VW for the last 1000 miles. Engine and oil temps were low for those engines, and it ran great. Abruptly a few weeks ago, I noticed yellow glitter in the oil (this engine has no oil filter) and what sounds like lifter tick. I put in 20w-50 and noises went down a little bit, but so did the idle... by about 300 rpm! The 20w-50 had enough drag on the oil pump to bog the engine down, and I needed to adjust the carburetor to compensate. Not only that, but oil temps went UP... thick = friction = heat. I knew that, but seeing that on my timing light was educational.

I've included the UOAs for my higher mileage BMW only as comparison between 2 different types of oil from the same brand, to show the differences. Stock spec is 5w-30, but also LL01, which the 0w-40 had up until a few years ago. On my next oil change on the Silverado (the first after switching 5w-30) I'll post that too, for data.

Edited July 22, 2022 by 16LT4

customboss · July 22, 2022

6 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

That first paragraph reads hard. MOFT...Minimum Oil Film Thickness. We are hair splitting. MOFT dynamically is a function of load, velocity and viscosity. The Hersey number; which brings it full circle to Stribeck. A motor "designed' to handle a 2.6 HTHS must use an oil that at prevailing conditions delivers that minimum which assures MOFT exist. It's a condition not a specification. No need to overcomplicate a hammer.....unless your English Viscosity in the Hersey equation is indeed temperature dependent and that temperature is set by the HTHS test requirement the motor is designed around.

NONE of the lighter oils you mention; BY SPECFICATION; are 2.6 cP HTHS oils.

An motor designed for a 2.6 WILL NOT do just fine on less.

Now having said that, HTHS specifications are MINIMUMS and yes some base oils do provide a higher value while at the same time hitting all other viscosity dependent value targets. Red Line HP is a prime example of a 5W20 that EXCEEDS the HTHS numbers for SAE30! MPT the same. HOWEVER this does not mean that this is true for all base oils/brands. They only have to meet minimum. There is no maximum. By your argument Red Line HP 0W20 would create problems with heat and fuel efficiency. It has an HTHS of 2.9...good enough to meet the 30W requirement. MPT 0W20 is well over the 30W spec, 3.2 cP. AMSOIL use to be before the changed formulation and starting letting chemicals do viscosities work.

Yea, yea, higher HTHS viscosity creates more heat and less fuel economy. A distinction without a difference for MOST. Not every motor is on the verge of dying the black death nor sludge ridden to the point of failure. Stating the extreme AS the normal is not useful and entirely misleading. An increase in HTHS also has wear benefits regardless of surface finish. Yea, yea...rationally small but motors don't wear in one cycle but tens of millions of cycles. Even a slight increase is many many miles further down the road. There is more spread between ACEA service classes for the same SAE 5W30 than there is between 20W and 30W. Should I conclude that some 5W30's will damage my motor because HTHS is to high? I think not.

Measured over 158K miles in my motor there is less than 5 F difference between 0W20 and 10W30 in bulk oil temperatures and roughly 2 mpg top to bottom.

MOFT is what drives MIN engine oil viscosity recommendations.

Splitting hairs? Hammers? APOLOGIES I did not intend to connect 2.9 to the SAE grades in my second sentence but you connected them.

I was on the fly and just shared the vis grades that came to mind. Talk about splitting hairs. That was "hard" because you went off the reservation in that quote.

HTHS established by SAE J300 based on ASTM D4683 is one of the readings to gauge MOFT with a safe boundary. I DID NOT say ever use less than a design HTHS or the engineering spec MOFT could be crossed and cause needless wear or damage.

If your engine owners manual says use 0w20 or 5w20 there is a reason for it more than just MPG.

It's not splitting hairs because HTHS mins for your engine is defined from MOFT.

I would NEVER recommend using less than recommended HTHS unless I knew the engineering data for that engine. Few of us ever will.

I will disagree about using an engine oil that is higher HTHS than required because there are designs that recommend 0w20 or 5w20 that require lower viscosities for heat dissipation and heat transfer design into certain designs. This so you get a balanced viscosity over the service temps, pressures, and drain intervals.

Using a higher viscosity than is required can be compensated by exotic esters and high quality synthetic base oils that test higher HTHS when they are very stable regardless of viscosity behavior in other words they stay in grade regardless of temp and pressure. In that case what Grumpy Bear shares can function fine.... but be careful, if you get a needlessly heavy lubricant in spite of temp as in a cheapo base oil with VII polymers who will thicken enough to change that heat dissipation function.

Especially critical in tight deck heights and critical coolant and oil flow valleys and journals that need speedy movement. I have seen deposits form in Ford Modular V8's specifically the 4.6L. I am not recently familiar enough with GM V8's and V6 engines that are recommending 0w20.

"Yea yea"..... don't dismiss what engineers designed and tested for a reason. Blanket dismissal can get an owner in trouble. This is not splitting hairs but an honest engine testing background warning. The hydraulic function on our engines is critical too. Cam phasers hydraulic function can be significantly affected in that case. Affecting combustion dynamics via valve action.

So Grumpy Bear using more viscous oils in your engines tested well from observation and in oil analysis but Dizzy used heavier oils in short intervals in a severely fuel diluting engine. In your 4.3 V6 you ran high end synthetics, Redline 0w20 that is super stable and higher HTHS than most. In other words Redline oil not being critically temperature dependent for normal operating temps in that street 4.3 pickup.

You are hitting your head against a wall for no reason but splitting hairs on oil formulations can matter if you are saying to the readers can always use a higher HTHS and worry nothing about it. So be careful making blanket recommendations based only on your internal testing.

Good note on 0w and 5w 16LT4. WINTER ranges of traditional engine oils, even GRP III highly refined will use pour point depressants that change the cold lubricant flow capability before being at operating temp and most traditional 0W versions will test at higher viscosities at 40C because of that wax changing chemistry. Not a base oil but a additive that changes wax formation in petroleum oils at lower temps.

"Pour point depressants are used to allow the use of petroleum based mineral oils at lower temperatures. The lowest temperature at which a fuel or oil will pour is called a pour point. Wax crystals, which form at lower temperatures, may interfere with lubrication of mechanical equipment.Pour point depressant - Wikipedia "

Grumpy Bear · July 22, 2022

On 7/21/2022 at 12:31 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

If an engine is designed to handle 2.6 HTHS and that protects above MOFT that engine can last a long time with whatever the SAE calls that bottled oil. 0w8,0w16,0w20 etc.

18 hours ago, customboss said:

APOLOGIES I did not intend to connect 2.9 to the SAE grades in my second sentence but you connected them.

I have no idea what the intention was but I know what the grammar means?

I don't do anything indiscriminately. You know better than to even say that. When I ran my test in the 4.3 using 0W20 it was BECAUSE it had a PUBLISHED HTHS number better than the SAE30 requirement. 5W30 being the manufactures recommendation and requirement. I thus KNEW the MOFT was being met.

I balk at using MOFT over HTHS values. They are not published. This arrogance of the oil industry is self serving and has nothing to do with protecting formulations. Ignorant people will buy what they PRECIEVE to be the smart choice based on what arrogant twit at a major oil concern wishes them to know. They control the formulation and the information which keeps everyone buying as ignorant as they choose to be.

To make MOFT stick you are going to have to show in real world data a SINGLE instance in a MAJOR brands deck of cards where the MOFT is NOT met when the HTHS is. You won't of course. First it isn't possible and second It's someone's intellectual property. Forced ignorance circling back.....

Which little brother is POINT, SET and MATCH

Doesn't matter how right your information is IF it is useless in practice by the guy whose boots are on the ground. I didn't say you were wrong.

I said over complicated.

The food industry did not wither and die because the government demanding they tell the consumer EXACTLY what was in what they ate AND in the order of volume. This let people make informed health choices instead of relying the liars manufacturing their food. The oil industry would do just fine as well.

Edited July 22, 2022 by Grumpy Bear

customboss · July 22, 2022

15 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I have no idea what the intention was but I know what the grammar means?

I don't do anything indiscriminately. You know better than to even say that. When I ran my test in the 4.3 using 0W20 it was BECAUSE it had a PUBLISHED HTHS number better than the SAE30 requirement. 5W30 being the manufactures recommendation and requirement. I thus KNEW the MOFT was being met.

I balk at using MOFT over HTHS values. They are not published. This arrogance of the oil industry is self serving and has nothing to do with protecting formulations. Ignorant people will buy what they PRECIEVE to be the smart choice based on what arrogant twit at a major oil concern wishes them to know. They control the formulation and the information which keeps everyone buying as ignorant as they choose to be.

To make MOFT stick you are going to have to show in real world data a SINGLE instance in a MAJOR brands deck of cards where the MOFT is NOT met when the HTHS is. You won't of course. First it isn't possible and second It's someone's intellectual property. Forced ignorance circling back.....

Which little brother is POINT, SET and MATCH

Doesn't matter how right your information is IF it is useless in practice by the guy whose boots are on the ground. I didn't say you were wrong.

I said over complicated.

The food industry did not wither and die because the government demanding they tell the consumer EXACTLY what was in what they ate AND in the order of volume. This let people make informed health choices instead of relying the liars manufacturing their food. The oil industry would do just fine as well.

Here's what I meant, don't use lower HTHS than what SAE shows. We agree? What does etc mean to you?

I am NOT,..... ONCE AGAIN suggesting MOFT be used by any consumer for all the reasons you shared above, but they need to know engineers use HTHS and SAE mins to guide never going below that.

Simple eh? No head banging icons.

Cheers!

Grumpy Bear · July 22, 2022

1 hour ago, customboss said:

Here's what I meant, don't use lower HTHS than what SAE shows. We agree? What does etc mean to you?

I am NOT,..... ONCE AGAIN suggesting MOFT be used by any consumer for all the reasons you shared above, but they need to know engineers use HTHS and SAE mins to guide never going below that.

Simple eh? No head banging icons.

Cheers!