0w20 is like putting water in your motor. Stay with 5w30 or 10w30 and engine will live forever
0W-20 oil required?
- Thread starter burgessdg
- Start date
- Status
This is from Ford that have been calling fot 5-20 wt oils since the early 2000s. Scrool down a few post.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2649074
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2649074
Last edited:
Regardless of anyone's opinion on the issue of thin versus thick, the Magnason Moss Warranty Act applies to vehicles purchased in the US. The OEM can only recommend a particular viscosity be used. If they require it, they must supply it at no charge. In case of a failure the OEM MUST prove the VISCOSITY caused the failure.
I think reasonable thinking should apply, if it calls for a 20, a 30 is ok but a 40 or 50 might restrict oil flow depending on engine design. JMHO
I think reasonable thinking should apply, if it calls for a 20, a 30 is ok but a 40 or 50 might restrict oil flow depending on engine design. JMHO
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Shannow
3 of those 4 are economy, and the other is tenuous at best, and can be attributed to the 0W in extreme conditions rather than anything to do with 20.
No it doesn't, 3 points speaks to less friction, no mention of temp. Point 3 has to do with increased pumpabily.
Point 1 is the pumpability to the valvetrain during warm-up, thus my comment that one point is about 0W, NOT 20...See sequence IV...when the oil is there, it's about additives/mixed lube, not viscosity...0W gets the oil there, not 20.
The other three are about economy...and honestly, point 3, has a similar power consumption to running a single, 50W low beam lamp...turn your lights off during the day for 3 times the economy benefit from the oil pump and 0W20 AFE...during warmup.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
3 of those 4 are economy, and the other is tenuous at best, and can be attributed to the 0W in extreme conditions rather than anything to do with 20.
No it doesn't, 3 points speaks to less friction, no mention of temp. Point 3 has to do with increased pumpabily.
Point 1 is the pumpability to the valvetrain during warm-up, thus my comment that one point is about 0W, NOT 20...See sequence IV...when the oil is there, it's about additives/mixed lube, not viscosity...0W gets the oil there, not 20.
The other three are about economy...and honestly, point 3, has a similar power consumption to running a single, 50W low beam lamp...turn your lights off during the day for 3 times the economy benefit from the oil pump and 0W20 AFE...during warmup.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
There are many advantages to the lighter 0w20 oils, and if your manufacture allows use of them and you aren't using them, your missing out.
OK, I'll bite...
"many", after the impercepitble to most increase in economy, what are the other "many-1" benefits ?
Please cite demonstrations, e.g. sequence IV warmup wear testing that demonstrate the substance of these benefits.
You can find some information in SAE paper 2005-01-3818
Quote:
This paper reviews the relative performance of prototype SAE 0W-20 and SAE 5W-20 ILSAC GF-4 [ 1 , 2 ] mineral oils in severe taxi fleet service. Both oils contained the same additive technology, formulated to 0.05% mass Phosphorus. This level was targeted to gain field experience with oils formulated to meet proposed chemical limits for the ILSAC GF-4 specification [ 1 , 2 ]. Though the limits in the final ILSAC GF-4 specification were increased to 0.08% mass Phosphorus, the 0.05% mass Phosphorus maximum is again proposed for the ILSAC GF-5 specification [ 3 ]. Used oil Chemical and Physical analysis was carried out at both interim and final drains (10,000 miles). Oil and fuel consumption were also monitored during the test. After a total mileage accumulation of 100,000 miles per vehicle, engine teardowns and physical ratings were performed on key engine components. It was concluded the performance of both lubricants was equivalent and acceptable. An exception to this was the fuel economy benefit of the SAE 0W-20 grade.
http://papers.sae.org/2005-01-3818/
...many advantages...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
There are many advantages to the lighter 0w20 oils, and if your manufacture allows use of them and you aren't using them, your missing out.
OK, I'll bite...
"many", after the impercepitble to most increase in economy, what are the other "many-1" benefits ?
Please cite demonstrations, e.g. sequence IV warmup wear testing that demonstrate the substance of these benefits.
You can find some information in SAE paper 2005-01-3818
Quote:
This paper reviews the relative performance of prototype SAE 0W-20 and SAE 5W-20 ILSAC GF-4 [ 1 , 2 ] mineral oils in severe taxi fleet service. Both oils contained the same additive technology, formulated to 0.05% mass Phosphorus. This level was targeted to gain field experience with oils formulated to meet proposed chemical limits for the ILSAC GF-4 specification [ 1 , 2 ]. Though the limits in the final ILSAC GF-4 specification were increased to 0.08% mass Phosphorus, the 0.05% mass Phosphorus maximum is again proposed for the ILSAC GF-5 specification [ 3 ]. Used oil Chemical and Physical analysis was carried out at both interim and final drains (10,000 miles). Oil and fuel consumption were also monitored during the test. After a total mileage accumulation of 100,000 miles per vehicle, engine teardowns and physical ratings were performed on key engine components. It was concluded the performance of both lubricants was equivalent and acceptable. An exception to this was the fuel economy benefit of the SAE 0W-20 grade.
http://papers.sae.org/2005-01-3818/
...many advantages...
Quote:
This paper reviews the relative performance of prototype SAE 0W-20 and SAE 5W-20 ILSAC GF-4 [ 1 , 2 ] mineral oils in severe taxi fleet service. Both oils contained the same additive technology, formulated to 0.05% mass Phosphorus. This level was targeted to gain field experience with oils formulated to meet proposed chemical limits for the ILSAC GF-4 specification [ 1 , 2 ]. Though the limits in the final ILSAC GF-4 specification were increased to 0.08% mass Phosphorus, the 0.05% mass Phosphorus maximum is again proposed for the ILSAC GF-5 specification [ 3 ]. Used oil Chemical and Physical analysis was carried out at both interim and final drains (10,000 miles). Oil and fuel consumption were also monitored during the test. After a total mileage accumulation of 100,000 miles per vehicle, engine teardowns and physical ratings were performed on key engine components. It was concluded the performance of both lubricants was equivalent and acceptable. An exception to this was the fuel economy benefit of the SAE 0W-20 grade.
And the fuel economy advantage was?
This paper reviews the relative performance of prototype SAE 0W-20 and SAE 5W-20 ILSAC GF-4 [ 1 , 2 ] mineral oils in severe taxi fleet service. Both oils contained the same additive technology, formulated to 0.05% mass Phosphorus. This level was targeted to gain field experience with oils formulated to meet proposed chemical limits for the ILSAC GF-4 specification [ 1 , 2 ]. Though the limits in the final ILSAC GF-4 specification were increased to 0.08% mass Phosphorus, the 0.05% mass Phosphorus maximum is again proposed for the ILSAC GF-5 specification [ 3 ]. Used oil Chemical and Physical analysis was carried out at both interim and final drains (10,000 miles). Oil and fuel consumption were also monitored during the test. After a total mileage accumulation of 100,000 miles per vehicle, engine teardowns and physical ratings were performed on key engine components. It was concluded the performance of both lubricants was equivalent and acceptable. An exception to this was the fuel economy benefit of the SAE 0W-20 grade.
And the fuel economy advantage was?
Last edited:
For what it's worth - my '10 Hyundai engine was redesigned with closer tolerance parts thus the recomendation for a 5W20 (although 5W30 , 10W30 allowed) . I once tried 5W30 conventional Mobil 5000 in the winter and did notice the engine would take a half mile or so to warm up and not act like it was going to hesitate or stall . When using synthetic 5W30 , 5W20 or 0W20 there are no problems with cold engine hesitation . Most likely a 5W20 conventional would not create any (or very little) engine hesitation as well but I believe 5W20 conventional has more of a synthetic trait to it in how it runs in a engine . Somewhere here I read there is not a lot of difference between a 5W20 conventional and synthetic , so why not run a 0W20 where better base stocks are used (especially if no difference in price) ?
Another irrational thicker must be better thread.
With all the obvious advantages (at least to anyone with half a
brain) of using motor oil no heavier than necessary that goes well beyond maximizing fuel economy, the real question is why they don't get it.
Are they really not that bright or do they simply have a thin oil phobia? With some I think it's the later. You'd think bearing wiping was happening left, right and centre. Of course there are virtually no cases of that but they still fear the
possibility if you run the spec'd 0W/5W-20.
With all the obvious advantages (at least to anyone with half a
brain) of using motor oil no heavier than necessary that goes well beyond maximizing fuel economy, the real question is why they don't get it.
Are they really not that bright or do they simply have a thin oil phobia? With some I think it's the later. You'd think bearing wiping was happening left, right and centre. Of course there are virtually no cases of that but they still fear the
possibility if you run the spec'd 0W/5W-20.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Shannow,
If 0-20 is inferrior, what wt. oil do you recommend for the OP and myself to use?
Anything less than xw40 will cause engine damage, as we all know.
Shannow,
If 0-20 is inferrior, what wt. oil do you recommend for the OP and myself to use?
Anything less than xw40 will cause engine damage, as we all know.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Shannow
3 of those 4 are economy, and the other is tenuous at best, and can be attributed to the 0W in extreme conditions rather than anything to do with 20.
No it doesn't, 3 points speaks to less friction, no mention of temp. Point 3 has to do with increased pumpabily.
Point 1 is the pumpability to the valvetrain during warm-up, thus my comment that one point is about 0W, NOT 20...See sequence IV...when the oil is there, it's about additives/mixed lube, not viscosity...0W gets the oil there, not 20.
The other three are about economy...and honestly, point 3, has a similar power consumption to running a single, 50W low beam lamp...turn your lights off during the day for 3 times the economy benefit from the oil pump and 0W20 AFE...during warmup.
But a 0w20 will be much lighter at all temps than a 0w30 or 0w40
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Shannow
3 of those 4 are economy, and the other is tenuous at best, and can be attributed to the 0W in extreme conditions rather than anything to do with 20.
No it doesn't, 3 points speaks to less friction, no mention of temp. Point 3 has to do with increased pumpabily.
Point 1 is the pumpability to the valvetrain during warm-up, thus my comment that one point is about 0W, NOT 20...See sequence IV...when the oil is there, it's about additives/mixed lube, not viscosity...0W gets the oil there, not 20.
The other three are about economy...and honestly, point 3, has a similar power consumption to running a single, 50W low beam lamp...turn your lights off during the day for 3 times the economy benefit from the oil pump and 0W20 AFE...during warmup.
But a 0w20 will be much lighter at all temps than a 0w30 or 0w40
I think I'm doing OK.
Originally Posted By: Ram01
0w20 is like putting water in your motor. Stay with 5w30 or 10w30 and engine will live forever
Originally Posted By: Ram01
0w20 is like putting water in your motor. Stay with 5w30 or 10w30 and engine will live forever
If I owned a vehicle that called for 0W-20, I would gladly use it. I'm using it in my mom's 2013 Fit and it seems to be working just fine so far. I'm also using 5W-20 in my girlfriend's '01 Civic and that, too, is holding up great. I've also used 5W-20 in my sister's old Escort ZX2 and I'm also using it in her current Windstar with over 230,000 miles on it. If the complaints about it being too thin were valid, I think we would have found out by now.
Originally Posted By: BrianC
Quote:
This paper reviews the relative performance of prototype SAE 0W-20 and SAE 5W-20 ILSAC GF-4 [ 1 , 2 ] mineral oils in severe taxi fleet service. Both oils contained the same additive technology, formulated to 0.05% mass Phosphorus. This level was targeted to gain field experience with oils formulated to meet proposed chemical limits for the ILSAC GF-4 specification [ 1 , 2 ]. Though the limits in the final ILSAC GF-4 specification were increased to 0.08% mass Phosphorus, the 0.05% mass Phosphorus maximum is again proposed for the ILSAC GF-5 specification [ 3 ]. Used oil Chemical and Physical analysis was carried out at both interim and final drains (10,000 miles). Oil and fuel consumption were also monitored during the test. After a total mileage accumulation of 100,000 miles per vehicle, engine teardowns and physical ratings were performed on key engine components. It was concluded the performance of both lubricants was equivalent and acceptable. An exception to this was the fuel economy benefit of the SAE 0W-20 grade.
And the fuel economy advantage was?
Aren't taxis running at temperature 99% of the time? Therefore, one would expect to see little fuel economy differences between a 0w20 and a 5w20.
But for the average user, where the warm up phase is a larger proportion of the total journey, it seems logical that a lower starting viscosity would result in fuel economy improvements.
Quote:
This paper reviews the relative performance of prototype SAE 0W-20 and SAE 5W-20 ILSAC GF-4 [ 1 , 2 ] mineral oils in severe taxi fleet service. Both oils contained the same additive technology, formulated to 0.05% mass Phosphorus. This level was targeted to gain field experience with oils formulated to meet proposed chemical limits for the ILSAC GF-4 specification [ 1 , 2 ]. Though the limits in the final ILSAC GF-4 specification were increased to 0.08% mass Phosphorus, the 0.05% mass Phosphorus maximum is again proposed for the ILSAC GF-5 specification [ 3 ]. Used oil Chemical and Physical analysis was carried out at both interim and final drains (10,000 miles). Oil and fuel consumption were also monitored during the test. After a total mileage accumulation of 100,000 miles per vehicle, engine teardowns and physical ratings were performed on key engine components. It was concluded the performance of both lubricants was equivalent and acceptable. An exception to this was the fuel economy benefit of the SAE 0W-20 grade.
And the fuel economy advantage was?
Aren't taxis running at temperature 99% of the time? Therefore, one would expect to see little fuel economy differences between a 0w20 and a 5w20.
But for the average user, where the warm up phase is a larger proportion of the total journey, it seems logical that a lower starting viscosity would result in fuel economy improvements.
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: tig1
Shannow,
If 0-20 is inferrior, what wt. oil do you recommend for the OP and myself to use?
Anything less than xw40 will cause engine damage, as we all know.
Check my signature before you put words in my mouth...
Originally Posted By: tig1
Shannow,
If 0-20 is inferrior, what wt. oil do you recommend for the OP and myself to use?
Anything less than xw40 will cause engine damage, as we all know.
Check my signature before you put words in my mouth...
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Thinner oils are all CAFE/economy driven,not engine protection driven. It'll even say "For best fuel economy,use such and such oil". Here's Penrite's and Mobil's recommendations for my car. I'll take the Penrite:
http://www.datateck.com.au/Lube/PenriteAus/
http://www.mobiloil.com/usa-english/motoroil/car_care/which_oil/WhichOilOption2.aspx
http://www.datateck.com.au/Lube/PenriteAus/
http://www.mobiloil.com/usa-english/motoroil/car_care/which_oil/WhichOilOption2.aspx
Originally Posted By: tig1
Shannow,
If 0-20 is inferrior, what wt. oil do you recommend for the OP and myself to use?
I personally don't think 0w-20 is bad, it does work as as indicated by many here with 200,000+ on their engines. My peronal opinion, 0w-30 is superior due to the higher HTHS #'s at operating temp and similar low temp flow charateristics. Is it measurable, maybe. I think there is some valid concern that we are being misled by those fine EPA folks as to the advantages of the thinner oil, fixin to be thinner soon. 16w coming with GF-6. The EPA is in overreach mode, as usual.
I find it odd that no other country these vehicles are shipped to specs 20wt oils except Japan. I'm I missing something here.
Are the engines different? I doubt it.
0w-30 or 5w-30 is a good choice for most modern gasoline engines as long as it meets the appropriate API/ACEA specs, and there many choices out there.
Will it make your engine last longer? Don't Know.
Can your Warranty be cancelled just because you use it? NO
As far as a Honda, any 0/5 w-30 oil meeting HTO-06 should treat your engine fine. JMHO
Shannow,
If 0-20 is inferrior, what wt. oil do you recommend for the OP and myself to use?
I personally don't think 0w-20 is bad, it does work as as indicated by many here with 200,000+ on their engines. My peronal opinion, 0w-30 is superior due to the higher HTHS #'s at operating temp and similar low temp flow charateristics. Is it measurable, maybe. I think there is some valid concern that we are being misled by those fine EPA folks as to the advantages of the thinner oil, fixin to be thinner soon. 16w coming with GF-6. The EPA is in overreach mode, as usual.
I find it odd that no other country these vehicles are shipped to specs 20wt oils except Japan. I'm I missing something here.
Are the engines different? I doubt it.
0w-30 or 5w-30 is a good choice for most modern gasoline engines as long as it meets the appropriate API/ACEA specs, and there many choices out there.
Will it make your engine last longer? Don't Know.
Can your Warranty be cancelled just because you use it? NO
As far as a Honda, any 0/5 w-30 oil meeting HTO-06 should treat your engine fine. JMHO
You'd most likely get an answer from Honda, or the dealership if you asked them.
So why not go to them and tell them how you feel, tell them the oil weight you are using in the 2012 Honda speccing 0w20 and why? They might okay it, or not.
Either way it goes, at least you manned up and you will have an answer. Good luck if you do go.
Personally, I think that some people just don't like being told what to do/use (rebellious spirit) even when it will provide benefit.
Another member alluded to it being more psychological in nature, and he's onto something.
What I'd like to know, op, is why you don't want to use the 0w20. Is it purely a cost standpoint? Or is it another reason? I don't know much about the 0w20 other than the fact that is "manufacturer recommended." Now I realize that the manufacturer recommendation is subject to interpretation. (I know that manufacturers design things to fail and recommend things that make you have to come back and buy a new car). I'd just really like to know what your reasoning is.
There's nothing new about twenty grade oils.
20W-20 was a commonly recommended grade in this country back in the day.
There's also nothing new about the desire for improved fuel economy. On an inflation adjusted basis, gas isn't a whole lot more expensive at three fiddy a gallon than it was at a tenth of that back in the day.
Read some ancient road tests. You'll learn that fuel consumption mattered to drivers even way back when.
When gas was thirty cents a gallon, in 1970, VW moved 300K cars in this country, an impressive number for what was then a much smaller company selling in what was also then a much smaller market. Presumably buyers weren't snapping up these air cooled flat fours for their high performance.
Fuel economy improvements run well ahead of CAFE requirements for the more efficient vehichles and that has been the case since the eighties. Many buyers seek to keep more dollars in their wallets by putting fewer of them in their fuel tanks and it has ever been thus.
WRT your Honda, I doubt that a 5W-30 conventional will hurt it.
I suspect that engine life and cleaness would be better using the recommended oil.
Use what you like.
It won't hurt the engine.
20W-20 was a commonly recommended grade in this country back in the day.
There's also nothing new about the desire for improved fuel economy. On an inflation adjusted basis, gas isn't a whole lot more expensive at three fiddy a gallon than it was at a tenth of that back in the day.
Read some ancient road tests. You'll learn that fuel consumption mattered to drivers even way back when.
When gas was thirty cents a gallon, in 1970, VW moved 300K cars in this country, an impressive number for what was then a much smaller company selling in what was also then a much smaller market. Presumably buyers weren't snapping up these air cooled flat fours for their high performance.
Fuel economy improvements run well ahead of CAFE requirements for the more efficient vehichles and that has been the case since the eighties. Many buyers seek to keep more dollars in their wallets by putting fewer of them in their fuel tanks and it has ever been thus.
WRT your Honda, I doubt that a 5W-30 conventional will hurt it.
I suspect that engine life and cleaness would be better using the recommended oil.
Use what you like.
It won't hurt the engine.
- Status
Similar threads
