0w-20 and the SN rating
- Thread starter Bill_W
- Start date
Why, what does he want to put in it if not SN?
Just tell them any REAL Miata owner uses 20W50!
I am the fella from the other forum. I think the OP is somewhat misunderstanding me. This is what the manual says:
I understand that an ILSAC approved 0W-20 oil is going to be SN or now higher. We know this to be true but it is not stated in the manual. However, this is not my question. There are numerous oil threads for the MX-5 as can be imagined
. I want to do an earlier than recommended oil change (in this case at 1,500) as I have done on every car/motorcycle/tractor etc. that I have owned rather than going 6 months and 6,000 miles before first change. Then let my dealer (who gave me coupons for several changes) do the oil change again at 6,000 and 12,000 etc.The Mazda owner manual for 2020 and 2021 does no longer include a Castrol recommendation as it once did, it says to use Mazda oil 0W-20 and the ILSAC symbol and 0W-20. It was inferred or stated that the Mazda oil was the "good stuff" (by this threads OP). Therefore I began to ponder what makes the Mazda product the "good stuff" and found that in several threads Mazda oil was widely believed to be high(er) in moly than other ILSAC 0W-20 (SN) oils. Even though the once recommended Castrol (Edge) is not known to be especially high in moly but of course does boast an additive package that apparently meets ILSAC/SN and higher specification. As does the Mobil 1 0W-20 and on and on.
So, are they (ILSAC/SN 0W-20 oils) not all the good stuff or is the Mazda oil the only one that is the "good stuff"? Does the (higher?) moly content of the Mazda oil make it a better product than ILSAC/SN 0W-20 Castrol and Mobil 1 and other products who also have highly developed additive packages and chemistry that may not rely as heavily on moly to achieve their SN rating or include the moly in a different formulation?
Those are my questions, what say you oil experts?
Last edited:
I didn't understand the first post of this thread actually 
Is this a discussion on the best 0W20 oil to use in the MX-5?
Some Mazda oil contain a big amount of moly, and I think the 0W20 is one of them.
For fun I would have a look at a European manual and see what is recommended there, maybe some ACEA specs (API are not particularly stringent)?
Is this a discussion on the best 0W20 oil to use in the MX-5?Some Mazda oil contain a big amount of moly, and I think the 0W20 is one of them.
For fun I would have a look at a European manual and see what is recommended there, maybe some ACEA specs (API are not particularly stringent)?
There we go. All that's needed is a 0w20 API oil.I am the fella from the other forum. I think the OP is somewhat misunderstanding me. This is what the manual says:
I understand that an ILSAC approved 0W-20 oil is going to be SN or now higher. We know this to be true but it is not stated in the manual. However, this is not my question. There are numerous oil threads for the MX-5 as can be imagined
The Mazda owner manual for 2020 and 2021 does no longer include a Castrol recommendation as it once did, it says to use Mazda oil 0W-20 and the ILSAC symbol and 0W-20. It was inferred or stated that the Mazda oil was the "good stuff" (by this threads OP). Therefore I began to ponder what makes the Mazda product the "good stuff" and found that in several threads Mazda oil was widely believed to be high(er) in moly than other ILSAC 0W-20 (SN) oils. Even though the once recommended Castrol (Edge) is not known to be especially high in moly but of course does boast an additive package that apparently meets ILSAC/SN and higher specification. As does the Mobil 1 0W-20 and on and on.
So, are they (ILSAC/SN 0W-20 oils) not all the good stuff or is the Mazda oil the only one that is the "good stuff"? Does the (higher?) moly content of the Mazda oil make it a better product than ILSAC/SN 0W-20 Castrol and Mobil 1 and other products who also have highly developed additive packages and chemistry that may not rely as heavily on moly to achieve their SN rating or include the moly in a different formulation?
Those are my questions, what say you oil experts?
I am the fella from the other forum. I think the OP is somewhat misunderstanding me. This is what the manual says:
I understand that an ILSAC approved 0W-20 oil is going to be SN or now higher. We know this to be true but it is not stated in the manual. However, this is not my question. There are numerous oil threads for the MX-5 as can be imagined
The Mazda owner manual for 2020 and 2021 does no longer include a Castrol recommendation as it once did, it says to use Mazda oil 0W-20 and the ILSAC symbol and 0W-20. It was inferred or stated that the Mazda oil was the "good stuff" (by this threads OP). Therefore I began to ponder what makes the Mazda product the "good stuff" and found that in several threads Mazda oil was widely believed to be high(er) in moly than other ILSAC 0W-20 (SN) oils. Even though the once recommended Castrol (Edge) is not known to be especially high in moly but of course does boast an additive package that apparently meets ILSAC/SN and higher specification. As does the Mobil 1 0W-20 and on and on.
So, are they (ILSAC/SN 0W-20 oils) not all the good stuff or is the Mazda oil the only one that is the "good stuff"? Does the (higher?) moly content of the Mazda oil make it a better product than ILSAC/SN 0W-20 Castrol and Mobil 1 and other products who also have highly developed additive packages and chemistry that may not rely as heavily on moly to achieve their SN rating or include the moly in a different formulation?
Those are my questions, what say you oil experts?
The Mazda OEM oil is blended by Idemitsu. It is a high moly oil, around 800ppm.
So, then again, does that moly content make the Mazda product better than other 0W-20 ILSAC/SN plus oils? Or is that moly content the way that Idemitsu achieves their ILSAC/SN rating as opposed to other proprietary additive packages that may be as good or better from Castrol, Mobil etc. ?
Images of the current Idemitsu product does not specifically mention a moly inclusion:
Yes sir, I think the same way, that being any 0W-20 (ILSAC/SN or higher) oil will achieve the required performance and (importantly) equal engine life protection.
If anyone has information that shows the Mazda/Idemitsu product to be actually better performance, better engine life protection than other ILSAC/SN or higher, 0W-20 oils then I would certainly like to see it please? Just saying it has more moly (okay, it does) does not provide any relevant conclusion that the product is better than other oils as all such oils contain additive packages that could be better than moly or equal or include the moly in some other formulation.
Last edited:
This is SN, however is it also C5. A more demanding spec.
So, then again, does that moly content make the Mazda product better than other 0W-20 ILSAC/SN plus oils? Or is that moly content the way that Idemitsu achieves their ILSAC/SN rating as opposed to other proprietary additive packages that may be as good or better from Castrol, Mobil etc. ?
Images of the current Idemitsu product does not specifically mention a moly inclusion:
They won’t tell you. A analysis will show the additive package.
I’m not saying that more moly is better. Actually moly comes in various formulations so going by ppm is not a defining thing either.
Go by ratings and licenses. A modern SP/GF6 oil is all you need.
Those magic words appear “required for optimum fuel economy” Had they said “required for extended engine life” it would be a different story. I will leave it at that.
Idemitsu may or may not blend the Mazda branded oil but that doesn't mean that is the same as the Idemitsu aftermarket product.
Also, no one here can tell you if one oil is better than another based on anything available, whether that be the company PDS or a $30 spectrographic analysis (UOA). Neither one of those is suitable for that task. A higher HT/HS with a corresponding higher MOFT is "better" perhaps but in order to gain anything significant in that regard you have to use a higher SAE grade.
Last edited:
And as I know you know the UOA doesn't show the additive package, it shows dissociated atoms from otherwise unknown additives. One can make educated guesses at what they were but it's important to make the distinction.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that NO 0W-20 would be considered GF6B. I thought it had to be 0W-16 or lower.
My source is here. https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants/about-us/mobil-1/mobil-1-modern-engines/ilsac-gf-6 and https://pqia.org/2020/12/01/hmmm-is-it-an-ilsac-gf-6-a-or-b/.
My source is here. https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants/about-us/mobil-1/mobil-1-modern-engines/ilsac-gf-6 and https://pqia.org/2020/12/01/hmmm-is-it-an-ilsac-gf-6-a-or-b/.
Then what is the point of the ratings and certifications if not to show a particular product meets the specifications agreed upon by the auto/engine makers?
As to fuel economy, I do not see the "magic" there? If the fuel economy of one product is better than another similar product, then why is that? less operating friction? If so then does not that imply that there is less engine wear if there is less friction? Or is the improved fuel economy (if it actually is improved, I question that as well) due to some other phenomena as the viscosity is still 0W-20 of the products I am comparing?
I guess I am not really interested in good, better and best, only that the products all meet the same specifications that the auto makers claim are important to them and therefore are all equivilent? Or is the Mazda product really the "good stuff" and what exactly makes it so since it was said to be by at least one fellow (from another similar thread) and what documentation other than saying it has higher moly content shows it to be better at engine wear, fuel economy, or any other criteria other than moly ppm?
Similar threads
