What you think, and reality seem to be far apart you see.
Reality has to be objective not subjective and that is where we differ!
Fact is motors are lasting longer, HP has improved, reliability has improved, service requirements on the decline and MPG is up.
Engines are lasting longer than the 60s and 70s yes and that has to do with metallurgy. Reliability is better and service requirements are less than they were then. Mileage is up due to the gearing and efficiency of the engines and drivetrains. 5, 6, 8 and 9 speeds vs 2 or 3 speeds then.
However, what you aren't talking about is that physics dictate that the more specific output an engine produces, the more heat it produces as well. We know the that rings in the Hemi are thin, that the pistons are as wide as they are long, that they moly coated the skirts to stop the rattle in the bore from piston slap. These engines start eating rings and burning oil due to these facts. Addressing it with tribology stops these problems and the oil analysis continues to prove it.
I too work and worked with GM, Ford, Chrysler and Honda. Have you been to Anna and Marysville and been in the plants with the engineers? I have!
I know what they talk about behind the closed doors because they discuss them with me. It is not all you claim it to be! Going the other way with thinner and thinner lubricants has a law of diminishing returns and we are seeing that evidenced in all the analysis sheets. I talk to the lab techs and we discuss where things have been and where they are going!
Now, having close working knowledge with the chem team at Chevron I can tell you without a doubt oils in the last 30 years have come a long way. Even oils from the last 10 years have improved.
Yes, they have changed. We have gone from (ZnDDP) Zinc Dialkyl Dithio Phosphate to (ZDP) Zinc Dithio Phosphate! 900 ppm ZnDDP vs 900 ppm ZDP...the ZDP is only 40% as good at protecting anti-scuff and anti-rust. The industry has gone to ZDP...why because it is cheaper!
Neutral Phosphorous additives we make have no acid producing or forming characteristics...acidic phosphorous is what you get from the shelf...compromised from the get go!
10 ppm magnesium vs 190 to 500 ppm. 10 to 19 ppm is like wet tissue paper for the sole of your shoe! But I have been over this. You have no understanding and just keep coming back with uninformed anechdotal 3rd party statements!
By your logic, the declining weight of oils should have a direct link to engine life. No such facts are present.
Yes it does and I see it constantly. This is why 1 single formula based on an SAE spec is insufficient protection.
By your logic, companies like Honda and Toyota who bank heavily on the reliability and durability of their motors, are only thinking 5-6 years out.
With all due respect, that's foolish.
Yes, like every car company, they are out to sell cars...it is how they survive. This is why Honda has a 3 year 36k mile warranty with a 6 year 60,000 mile power train warranty. Sorry, but many people want to depend on their cars longer than that! Even Chrysler has a 5 year 100,000 mile warranty on powertrain. Engineers have told me directly to my face that 4.6 to 5.8 years is what they design them for. Good luck after that. We don't accept that here and plan for indefinite time periods and get them!
Engine oils are getting thinner, because motor technology can support it and the oils have improved.
They are thinner because the refineries are set up for massive production of PAO Based oils that get mileage and reduction in emissions and are not set up for long term life. Older engines that are run on the newer oils are tearing up due to their EPA ILSAC-GF5 and API SN specs.
And you're right. Motors are different. Have 140k flogging a motor with FRS lined sleeves I'll tell you the coating doesn't wear. It allowed a motor that reved past 8k to consume no oil. Lower friction allows for skyactive technology and better MPG in motors designed to reduce friction.
Ok, now you are bringing racing technology. Darton FA20 and FR-S sleeves are major modifications for those engines boring out the cylinders and adding the sleeves. We are talking two different realities. You are coming out of left field with these. I am talking about people here with production castings and production internals that we address the issues with. Can we do race engine components....of course but that is not what we started out talking about!
What I notice about your pitches now, since you cannot prove you're better then Amsoil or Redline, comes down to cost or the environment.
Here's the thing. You don't seem to hear anything but what is in your head. What we make is superior to ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN BUY regardless if it is an ester based Redline or a PAO Amsoil. You hold to your biases without understanding. Oil analysis is the end all for lubricants....PERIOD...everything else is anecdotal baseless statements!
Just because a motor you run with your oil goes 250k, doesn't prove that it was better off for running your oil. My Chevron buddies ran a mid-90's honda 320k using the cheapest dino oil and frame filter. Changing the oil once a year. When the car left their hands it burned no oil and ran smoothly.
The oil analysis of the 250k mile engine and the water test on the heads and the lack of ring ridge in the cylinders and the complete integrity of the babbit on the bearing sleeves are what is evaluated. By the way, it is a Fram filter which is of very poor quality:
Non-uniform pleats, paper end caps and a leaf spring stamping that doesn't even touch the bottom of the filter.
Still anecdotal and here-say on the 320 k miles pictures, measurements, comparisons....not credible!
I think you play up on a lot of the buttons you claim the markets due.