Have you guys seen this yet?

[darcane]

As oil is heated, it's viscosity decreases. Manufacturers pick engine oil based on it's properties at it's normal operating temps.

Heating your oil past this temperature would be similar to choosing a lower viscosity oil. I would have some significant reservations about running oil that is less viscous at operating temps than the manufacturer's recommended oil (either through heating or choosing a less viscous oil).

I do see a lot of value in something like this for warming up oil quickly in a cold engine. I just wouldn't be comfortable pushing oil temps up to 250-300°F

[Daox]

^^^
Ditto.

[jamesqf]

Wish someone would explain exactly how this differs from switching to say 0W20 oil? (Assuming of course that your engine doesn't already use it for increased economy.) Except that you don't have to pay for the modifications, or worry about pipes cracking and draining all your oil.

[S Keith]

Two year old information with seemingly contradictory claims. 7% improvement in fuel economy, 30% reduction in emissions and 96% reduction in wear.

Let's assume 7% is a real number. Let's use easy math and say the propulsive efficiency jumps from 20% to 27%. That's a huge change, which draws the 7% claim into question, and it's nearly 30%, which is where I suspect the 30% emissions number comes from, but we're still only only utilizing 27% of the heat energy burned vs. 80% with regular oil.

So, if the 7% claim is true, the 30% claim is false. If the 7% claim is true and the 30% is revised to indicate "increase in overall efficiency," we can say those numbers are consistent; however, emissions are directly proportional to fuel burned, so if we're burning 7% less fuel, we're producing 7% less emissions.

Lastly... 96% reduction in wear. Actually, given the massive increase in overall efficiency, this would almost have to be true... a near elimination of mechanical friction within the engine's moving parts... however...

Increased temp lowers the viscosity of the oil, which does indeed make it flow easier; however, it decreases the oil's ability to adhere to components, which generally decreases lubricity and increases friction of moving parts... contrary to the 96% wear claim.

Given the age of the information and the lack of follow-up testing or reporting, I am very dubious of these claims.

Subsequent googleage shows these claims are as old as late 2011 with little newer than 2012. However, there was a presentation to SAE of Japan in 2013, and the summary links efficiency and emissions at 7-12% improvement. If it weren't for this and some seemingly significant recognition by legitimate organizations, I would dismiss this as snake oil.

[Ecky]

I imagine reduction in wear and emissions are due to vastly improved warmup times, and not the increase in oil temperature itself. Heck, fuel economy would improve, on average, just from faster warmups too. No need to run the oil hotter.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by S Keith

Let's assume 7% is a real number. Let's use easy math and say the propulsive efficiency jumps from 20% to 27%. That's a huge change, which draws the 7% claim into question, and it's nearly 30%, which is where I suspect the 30% emissions number comes from, but we're still only only utilizing 27% of the heat energy burned vs. 80% with regular oil.

"Easy math" often means you are doing it wrong.

You need to pay attention when working with percentages. A 7% increase of 20% is not 27% but 21.4% (Multiply by 1.07 not add 7%).

If the claims are close to accurate for emissions and wear, it's because of improved warm-up times as Ecky stated. However, just one high RPM romp with 300°F oil could easily negate all reduction in wear...

[S Keith]

Originally Posted by darcane

"Easy math" often means you are doing it wrong.

You need to pay attention when working with percentages. A 7% increase of 20% is not 27% but 21.4% (Multiply by 1.07 not add 7%).

If the claims are close to accurate for emissions and wear, it's because of improved warm-up times as Ecky stated. However, just one high RPM romp with 300°F oil could easily negate all reduction in wear...

My easy math was way harder than the math used for those numbers

I understand the percentages, easy math was used for illustrative purposes to try and explain those numbers. I took it a bit far.

I don't understand how those claims could be made if they only apply to the warm-up phase. Is it safe to say that a car is fully warmed-up in the first couple miles? After the first couple miles, wouldn't the benefit be negated?

Steve

[Frank Lee]

I'd rather use a plug-in electric pan heater. Get the benefit from the first crank.

[Ecky]

Given how many of my neighbors drive their trash to the dumpster (or in the past, to the ends of their driveways), I imagine saving on warmup times would help tremendously with national gas mileage averages. I had a coworker who would drive across a parking lot to get a sandwich from the American Deli - about 100ft. She's thin and healthy (pays for a gym membership and actually uses it) and in her late 20's.

[Frank Lee]

In over 20 years I've seen the neighbor lady actually walk that 100' to the mailbox twice; the rest of the time she snags it while in the car. No, she's not disabled.