0W-20 oil required?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I asked the dealer why Ford used 5w-20 the last time I was in for the Eco-Boost challenge test drive to get a $50 gift card in the mail. Now keep in mind it was a dealer service manager I talked to, and we know how they can be, but his answer makes sence to me. He said the engineer told him when they started to back spec older cars, (which are not affected by CAFE standards) that Ford has thought thinner oil was better for start up, economy and upper engine lubrication for many years, especially in colder climates. And Ford was actually late to the 5w-20 party. Most other automakers where working on it before ford. The problem was oil durability. 20 weight oils just didn't hold up then. He said once oil advanced far enough that a 5w-20 could last beyond a recommended oil change interval, they where able to safely recommend it. He also said the thinner oils warm to operating temps faster and are more reliable for operating things such as cam phasers, but admits the oil controlled cam phasers weren't the best idea. The adviser also told me he remembers when auto makers started using 5w-30. He said people complained and thought their engines would fail early and some said it was a trick to make the vehicle die early to sell more cars. Some folks even demanded 10w40 be used in their cars and then complained when they were hard to start in the winter. Because most of the Eco-Boost engines tend to be harder on oil so they use 5w-30 to ensure it lasts for the recommended oil change intervals. He thought 5w-20 would be better for them too but would have to be changed too often and would not be cost efficient. He was willing to bet in a few years they will use 5w-20 as well.

While a dealer service adviser is obviously biased and wants you to feel good, and they do not always have as much knowledge as they think, It makes sense to me. My cars have had no issues with 5w-20 and I am hard on them. My Focus was even neglected and saw a few 15-20,000 mile oil changes with conventional 5w-20. It just turned 179,000 miles and the only engine issue it has ever had was the valve cover gasket. It runs great and still has good power. It has picked up a slight knock when it's cold that goes away after a few minutes. I think a 0w-20 would likely quiet it down sooner. I am sure the engine will out last the rest of the car. My 1969 snow blower with a Briggs engine calls for 5w-20 in the winter so I know it has been around a while.
 
My recommendation is full synthetic.
Use a grade/weight that you are comfortable with for your weather conditions, driving style, aftermarket mods, and expectations.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Save the 0W-20 for the sewing machine.

Actually, I wouldn't even use it for that.
grin2.gif



While you have a smiley, you're really just showing your ignorance.

Early 10th Gen Corolla owners are now surpassing 300K miles on 0w-20. Engines are far outlasting transmissions and clutches. I get zero measurable oil consumption on my 100K+ mile Corolla, all on 0w-20.

Just what more do you want out of your engine and oil?

EDIT: I did run 5w-20 during the Summer once, because old PU wasn't available in 0w-20. My engine still didn't blow up or start burning oil.
smile.gif
 
Last edited:
That kind of statement confuses me. When is "then"? So when other manufacturers started specifying 20-weight oils they were inferior in quality to existing 30-weights?

I can see an argument that they were too thin due to the design of the engine, or that there was too much consumption, or that pink flamingos might blow out the tailpipe. But durability? Really? Which 20-weight oils that you may have used back then (let's say 15 years ago) weren't "durable", other than some brand that already sold a sketchy 30-weight?

Originally Posted By: jmb3675
I asked the dealer why Ford used 5w-20 the last time I was in for the Eco-Boost challenge test drive to get a $50 gift card in the mail. Now keep in mind it was a dealer service manager I talked to, and we know how they can be, but his answer makes sence to me. He said the engineer told him when they started to back spec older cars, (which are not affected by CAFE standards) that Ford has thought thinner oil was better for start up, economy and upper engine lubrication for many years, especially in colder climates. And Ford was actually late to the 5w-20 party. Most other automakers where working on it before ford. The problem was oil durability. 20 weight oils just didn't hold up then. He said once oil advanced far enough that a 5w-20 could last beyond a recommended oil change interval, they where able to safely recommend it. He also said the thinner oils warm to operating temps faster and are more reliable for operating things such as cam phasers, but admits the oil controlled cam phasers weren't the best idea.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
When is "back then"? So when other manufacturer's started specifying 20-weight oils they were inferior in quality to existing 30-weights?

I can see an argument that they were too thin due to the design of the engine, or that there was too much consumption, or that pink flamingos might blow out the tailpipe. But durability? Really? Which 20-weight oils that you may have used back then (let's say 15 years ago) weren't "durable", other than a brand that was sketchy anyway?

Originally Posted By: jmb3675
I asked the dealer why Ford used 5w-20 the last time I was in for the Eco-Boost challenge test drive to get a $50 gift card in the mail. Now keep in mind it was a dealer service manager I talked to, and we know how they can be, but his answer makes sence to me. He said the engineer told him when they started to back spec older cars, (which are not affected by CAFE standards) that Ford has thought thinner oil was better for start up, economy and upper engine lubrication for many years, especially in colder climates. And Ford was actually late to the 5w-20 party. Most other automakers where working on it before ford. The problem was oil durability. 20 weight oils just didn't hold up then. He said once oil advanced far enough that a 5w-20 could last beyond a recommended oil change interval, they where able to safely recommend it. He also said the thinner oils warm to operating temps faster and are more reliable for operating things such as cam phasers, but admits the oil controlled cam phasers weren't the best idea.


I think the SM was referring to shear stability. All oils shear. Some engines shear oil more than others. Most 0w-20's are synthetic and the rest are semi-synthetic not just for VI, but for shear resistance.

So yes, a modern syn or semi-syn 0w-20 is more "durable" than an old SAE20W in that respect.
 
I believe he is referring to the mid to late 90's when OEM'S really got serious about recommending 20 grades. Keep in mind 5W30's and to some extent 10W30's still shear into the upper end of the 20 grade range. Imagine a primary group I PCMO with the VII's for a 5W20 oil shearing with 10K OCI in the 90's. Because we know the general car owner follows the OCI recommended by the OEM in their owners manual. Correct?
 
Ford had a double sequence test requirement for their 5w20. At that time, there wasn't a conventional GF3 5w30 that could pass it. The 5w20's typically needed to be a synth blend to pass.
GF4 pretty much addressed the pathetic performance of conventional motor oils.
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Early 10th Gen Corolla owners are now surpassing 300K miles on 0w-20. Engines are far outlasting transmissions and clutches. I get zero measurable oil consumption on my 100K+ mile Corolla, all on 0w-20. Just what more do you want out of your engine and oil?

A fair question, though I doubt you will receive any semblance of a logical answer. For all of the bellyhooing about thick versus thin, in an engine that is specified to use it, there is not much (if any) chatter about 0/5W-20 destroyed my engine.
 
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4

A fair question, though I doubt you will receive any semblance of a logical answer. For all of the bellyhooing about thick versus thin, in an engine that is specified to use it, there is not much (if any) chatter about 0/5W-20 destroyed my engine.


That's my observations as well. I don't see any smoking guns (or engines) out there in Internet land. One fellow had a bad Pilot camshaft on 5w-20... but the rest of the engine was fine. To me that means it was probably a bad camshaft to begin with.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
[/quote]
20W20 would be labelled on this board as "really a 30", as it's HTHS is typically 2.9+ getting to 20 at 100C without VII.

Really!
20W-20 is of course a mineral grade with a KV100 values that were typically in the 7-8cSt range for PCMOs. I'd like to see some examples or some other proof that a straight mineral oil that light could possibly have a HTHSV as high as 2.9cP+.
Even some light synthetic 10W-30 PCMOs that contain little or no VIIs with a KV100 of 10cSt only have a HTHSV of 3.0cP.
 
I still don't fully understand exactly the science behind how a 0W oil works. Would there be any harm in using a 0W oil in an engine specd for a minimum 10W? Reason I ask (and I may be just simply paranoid) Walmart no longer carries Edge 10W40 (I tried to do site to store last night and it said out of stock,cannot fill order),so I'm tempted to try the German Edge 0W40.

Any reasons I should *not* give Edge 0W40 a try? I've run everything from 10W30-20W50 (different brands in dino and synth) and 40 weight is definitely the sweet spot,and the Castrol synthetics have been my favorite.
 
No. Remember 0W40's were not readily available when your car's owners manual was printed. Even Castrol 0W40 would work great for your Nissan.
 
What differentiates a 0W oil vs a 5W, 10W etc as far as the SAE grading in concerned is simply it's ability to pump at -40 degrees. A 5W won't but it will at -35C and a 10W will at -30C.

To make most 0W oils and all 0W-40 oils requires the use of synthetic base stocks. That's not the case for 10W-30/40 oils which can easily be made from 100% mineral base oils.
When a 10W-30/40 oil was specified back in the 90's they were saying just using a mineral oil is fine. Synthetic oils weren't as common back them.
If you what to upgrade to the benefits of synthetic oil in the 40 grade you pretty much have to use a 5W-40 or 0W-40.

Since a 10W-30 dino is one of the specified grades a 0W-40 like Castrol Edge will still be heavier at normal operating temp's so I don't think you have anything to be concerned about.

BTW, since this thread is about the 0W-20 grade, the reason the OEMs are now specifying it vs 5W-20 has nothing to do with the fact that it will pump at -40 degrees and the 5W-20 won't. The process of formulating the 0W-20 grade also results in an oil with a higher VI than a 5W-20 dino and even most 5W-20 synthetics. The higher VI means the oil will also be lighter on start-up at all temp's and that is the reason it's specified.
 
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: Shannow
20W20 would be labelled on this board as "really a 30", as it's HTHS is typically 2.9+ getting to 20 at 100C without VII.

Really!
20W-20 is of course a mineral grade with a KV100 values that were typically in the 7-8cSt range for PCMOs. I'd like to see some examples or some other proof that a straight mineral oil that light could possibly have a HTHSV as high as 2.9cP+.
Even some light synthetic 10W-30 PCMOs that contain little or no VIIs with a KV100 of 10cSt only have a HTHSV of 3.0cP.


CATERHAM, clearly you'll recall a discussion a feww weeks ago when you stated that you didn't need a history lesson in the of HTHS being brought into J300 relatively late in the programme.

So for others who may forget your dismissing that history as being irrelevant to any discussion of "modern oils".

Viscosity was the sole determinate of the grade of an oil for a long time. The charts and grades were developed from an era in which Newtonian fluids were the norm, with viscosity unaffected by shear rate.

Straight 20s had a viscosity of around 2.9 at 150C, 30s around 3.5 and so-on...

With the advent of VIIs, lubricants were formulated with ligher basestocks than their grade would suggest, and bolstered with VIIs...which display temporary (and permanent) shear at high shear rates, reflective of the VIIs becoming planar in the direction of the shear forces. Some of the multigrades (e.g. the 5W and 10W 40s) were completely unable to provide the protection that consumers thought that they were getting from a 40 with the cold protection of a 10.

So the committee started working with the behaviour of the lubricants in the high shear range, the so called "second Newtonian" range and included MINIMUM HTHS requirements in parallel to the KV requirements...

Take as an eg the aforementioned 40s, they had 2 allowable HTHS'...2.9 for the 0W, 5W, 10W 40s, and 3.7 for the 15W, 20W, and 25W40s, reflecting the greater temporary shear that the VIIS gave the wider ranges. (as an aside, wth better VIIS, this 2.9 MIN has been raised)

So naturally, and in general, the MINIMUM HTHS for a multigrade is less than for a newtonian oil in that range...

For those interested in the HTHS that a straight mineral oil (Newtonian) of around 100 VI would be, these charts are available in the back of many shell publications, and you can simply chart where the KV would end up at 150C (doesn't work for VII equipped oils, as they display temporary shearing)
IMG_07701.jpg




Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

Really!
.
.
.
I'd like to see some examples or some other proof that a straight mineral oil that light could possibly have a HTHSV as high as 2.9cP+.
.

http://www.technologylubricants.com/MSDS/CITGO/PDS/C500 single visc_pds.pdf

And you are quite right that 2.9 is the range for multigrade 30s as per J300 MINIMUMS.

This was an interesting series of experiments that GMan did with his Chrysler
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1174209

Demonstrating that a straight, Newtonian dino "20" DID perform as well as or better than a VII'd 30 of similar HTHS...the Valvoline product was listed as HTHS 2.9.
 
The modern Citco diesel oil example you've sited had a KV100 of 9.0cSt, almost in the 30 grade range, so I'm not surprised the HTHSV is 2.9cP. That doesn't mean the same grade of 50 years ago would have had the same HTHSV and I understand that the 20W-20 grade back then did use VIIs if not necessarily today.

But my question referred to what was the HTHSV of a PCMO 20 grade that had a KV100 in the 7-8cSt range that was typical of the grade 40-50 years ago? Since the HTHSV measure hadn't been developed yet neither you nor know but I posit that it could easily have been as low 2.6cP for some lighter available versions of the grade.
 
Uhhh, CAFE was enacted in 1975. There is no doubt in my mind that the lighter oil scenario was implemented to meet CAFE.
 
Originally Posted By: Roob
18.gif

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.




I am going tomorrow and I will ask. I'll let you know what they say. Think I'll be able to get it in writing? LOL

Oh, and the problem I have with 0W-20 is I'm cheap and see no benefit paying 3x the price for oil.

Dan
 
Originally Posted By: splinter
Originally Posted By: burgessdg
What's everyone think?


Have the 47 replies offered thus far helped?


@splinter: Yea, they helped. Well maybe not the ones that didn't read my whole original post...

Dan
 
Originally Posted By: burgessdg
Uhhh, CAFE was enacted in 1975. There is no doubt in my mind that the lighter oil scenario was implemented to meet CAFE.


uhhh, 20W oils were in use long before 1975...

No doubt, thinner oils have been increasingly spec'd for fuel economy reasons. Question: so what? Why does that necessarily mean that they don't protect as well or better than thicker oils? That question in never answered in these never-ending CAFE threads.

As far as your car--it's your car, use what you want! I seriously doubt you'll have any warranty problems, and never got all the hand-wringing over it. I mean, what is the likelihood you'll have an issue in the first place--and that oil viscosity will be the deal breaker? Of course, in the incredibly unlikely event that you do have an issue and the mfg calls you on it, then it's on you (ridiculous "Magnuson-Moss" claims otherwise--the manufacturer certainly CAN require an oil viscosity, and no, they don't have to give it to you free of charge...).

Don't use sketchy convenience store oil, keep enough in there and change it occasionally and you'll be fine, regardless of grade. If it makes you feel like a renegade by "stickin' it to the man" and using a heavier oil, have at it.
 
Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
What differences do you believe you would see in the structure of the oil when comparing a 0W20 vs. a 0W30 oil after 7,500 miles ? Would there be a concern for the 30W sheering down to a 20W or more prone to additive loss due to larger delta from 0W to 30 vs. the 0W20 ?


Not an oil engineer but from what I have read the first # is the base oil. Then polymers are added that thicken the oil when hot, making that base oil act like a thicker oil when hot, that thickness is then the second #. Soooo, to answer your question, as the oil ages, additives go away and you end up with more 0 than 20. To the point where you could end up with just 0. Make sense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top