600w............enough is enough!

[Tom Wesenberg]

I think the "W" stand for "whatever"........ho hum....say good-night Gracey

[ctlikon0712]

I think it’s an interesting subject..... About like whitewalls!

[BILL WILLIAMSON]

Someone mentioned, "the new guys who don't know"----WELL! after they read pages & pages, they still won't know---OR they're waiting for someone to suggest the same thing the guy's ALREADY using, or plans to use!!
OH WELL, it keeps him off the street & out of trouble.
Bill W.

[BILL WILLIAMSON]

Originally Posted by ctlikon0712

I think it’s an interesting subject..... About like whitewalls!

GEEZ! CT, did you have to mention that? I'm just hopin' my "painted out" used spare tire doesn't "BLOOM OUT"!! The Dog just suggested I carry a MAGIC MARKER, just in case!! Who's he think he is? His BLACK & WHITE is akin to a whitewall tire! (He said, "But what about my "PUZZLE PART" spot on my starboard side????)
Bill W.

[Fred K-OR]

Originally Posted by ctlikon0712

I think it’s an interesting subject..... About like whitewalls!

Could also talk about what kind of oil to use in the engine. This ought to add a few more posts.

P.S. I like my ww on my 29 std coupe-----

[steve s]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Pondering how the W-weight "colloquialism" ever got started--I know it's all wrong, but it's just so darned handy that I use it myself--just rolls off the tongue so much easier than "ISO" or "SAE" or "viscosity".

My hypothesis is that it started with the advent of multigrade oils, where the "W" was used to display the oil's equivalency under winter test conditions, as in 10W-40, which tests like SAE 40 oil when hot but like SAE 10 oil when cold. People then made the understandable but erroneous leap from "W" for winter to "W" for weight. The "W" in Mobil's product in an entirely coincidental and equally uninformed way fed into this usage.

Does anyone remember the days before multigrade oils and if the oil viscosities we now refer to as, for example, "straight 30 weight" were then referred to in terms of weights? Or, was it referred to as SAE 30, or 30 grade, or 30 viscosity or somesuch?

Steve

[Smurkey]

Can we also put a period at the end of the "Marvel Mystery Oil" sentence...? It has been a couple of days since a three-page post on that subject.

[Don/WI]

For the folks that think that some subjects are brought to the front too often, why don't you just skip over them. It really is quite simple. Then you won't be so upset. It does not take up any room on your computer. All you need to do is scroll past the "unwanted" subjects. I have been reading this web-site since it started and personally learned some good information from this post. Didn't disturb me at all. As tom said, "Good night Gracie". Don/WI

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by steve s

Pondering how the W-weight "colloquialism" ever got started--I know it's all wrong, but it's just so darned handy that I use it myself--just rolls off the tongue so much easier than "ISO" or "SAE" or "viscosity".

............
Steve

How right you are Steve. But that's the nature of a colloquialism, the repetition breeds familiarity and familiarity is comfort. But having made the same observation as you I've often wondered how those who adhere to that phrasing can be comfortable with saying "10 weight 30"..........sounds clunky doesn't it?

Reminds me of non lubrication examples. There are those who don't understand the difference between the words your and you're. Because they sound very similar in pronunciation, many will use the possessive form (your) when they should be using the contraction (you're). For the blissfully uninformed there's nothing there to distinguish so no confusion. For those who do know the difference each time they see the wrong word used in a sentence their brain does a millisecond or two fart as their mind has to do a translation to understand what the writer really meant. Of course if you know the difference and point it out you're immediately labeled a grammar or spelling nazi. Those who don't care about the accuracy of word usage/language gang up for a variety of personal reasons. Look at this thread, and others of a similar nature, roughly half are compelled for some reason to denigrate to some degree the attempt to expand understanding, others appreciate it. Human nature in action.......

As for the question of origins of word usage, it's tough to tell, speculation is what we're left with. As implied in my original post I believe it came from our use of "heavy" or "light" to attempt to draw a verbal picture to distinguish a more viscous fluid from a less viscous one (perhaps stemming from a potentially unfair characterization that a heavy person moves more slowly than a lighter person). I'm an old fart but my time in the lubrication world didn't predate multi-grade oils. However, those who were old timers when I was a whipper snapper readily used the weight terminology so my guess would be its use predated multi-grade oils. As an added influence the comment above by redmodelt may have some merit. Traditionally greases have been sold by the pound rather than by liquid measure. And for reasons unknown to me, gear lubes have historically been classified within lubricant manufacturer categories as greases, even though they may be no more viscous than some lubricants classified as oils. There had to be some logic at some time, I just haven't explored what that may have been. Nomenclatures have a purpose (sometimes more than one). In petroleum a "bucket" of oil is called a 5 gallon pail, but put grease in the same container and it's a 35 pound pail. Then to really mess with your head a "barrel" is 42 gallons, a "drum" is 55. But then that nifty container that some here have seen used as a shop garbage can is known as a "1/4 barrel" if filled with 15 gallons of oil or " 120 #" when filled with grease. Of course if you multiply that 15 gallons by 4 you get neither 42 nor 55 gallons.

[Purdy Swoft]

Thanks Uncle Bob for the 600w info and the english refresher, it doesn't hurt a bit !!!

[Hotrodmyk]

OK, I have read thread after thread on this subject. Lots of experts and opinions. My question: had anyone experienced a failure by using modern lube such as 85 - 140?

[steve s]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

.......

As for the question of origins of word usage, it's tough to tell, speculation is what we're left with. As implied in my original post I believe it came from our use of "heavy" or "light" to attempt to draw a verbal picture to distinguish a more viscous fluid from a less viscous one ....

There is even a perverse technical error with this notion, too: The commonly cited kinematic viscosities (e.g., stokes, SUS) are defined as the absolute or dynamic viscosity (e.g., pascal-seconds, poise) divided by the density. Thus, for two fluids having the same absolute viscosity, the "heavier" one [insert rant about colloquial confusion of "weight" and "density"] would actually have the lower kinematic viscosity.

... more than anyone wanted to know, but, as long as we're getting stuff on the record, there it is.

Steve

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by steve s

... more than anyone wanted to know, but, as long as we're getting stuff on the record, there it is.

Steve

Yeah, but look at how much fun it is to get your geek on............

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by Hotrodmyk

OK, I have read thread after thread on this subject. Lots of experts and opinions. My question: had anyone experienced a failure by using modern lube such as 85 - 140?

No!

Nobody has had a failure from straight weight oil, synthetic or even detergent oil. No failures from corn head grease, penrite, or STP.

No failures from MMO or Deisel in the fuel.

This is what makes for all the responses to these questions. If using something would always cause a failure it could be eliminated, else it is just a personal opinion.