0W-20 vs 5W-20

[Cup of Joe]

Originally Posted By: skyship

Err you most definitely can, as a transmission has bearings and many other parts that can be made cheaper if they last too long.
Some of you are missing the point that CAFE is about the average fuel consumption figures of a corporation and the car manufacturers are doing everything possible to chase the low fuel numbers to avoid what is in effect a fine or if they get lucky a reward. The figures involved mean they don't care if their engines don't last 20 years plus, as long not too many fail during the warranty they will play the thin oil game as hard as they can. Obviously it also looks good in advertising terms to say how little fuel a car or truck uses, but they sure won't tell you the new main block life expectancy has been reduced, how much top up oil will be required or why you have to change the oil so often.


I was not refering to the fluid, I was refering to the entire transmission. If your car has a 4 speed auto now and the new 6 speed has better fuel economy are they going to back sepc a whole new transmission? Of course not, that would be cost prohibitive. Back specing a fluid is cheap in comparison.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Capa
You thick oil guys keep on spreading your FUD about thinner oils and more engine wear, more oil leaks, more oil consumption, etc. and yet you try to ignore and avoid the big, fat elephant in the room---that our vehicles in the US with their thinner oils are outlasting your vehicles with their thicker oils in Europe and Australia, lol!

Show me how cars are scrapped in Europe or anywhere else for that matter because of engine failures vs the US, or even the engine failure rate per 1,000 in any country inc the US
You made a statement now your being called out to prove it!

That info is pretty scarce. So are you just making up "facts" to prove your point?

Fact is from what i see if most of the cars running in the US over 5 yrs old were subjected to a rigorous MOT or TÜV most people would be taking the bus.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Fact is from what i see if most of the cars running in the US over 5 yrs old were subjected to a rigorous MOT or TÜV most people would be taking the bus.



THIS!!! Times a million! I follow vehicles every day that are terribly unfit to even be on the road.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Trav


Fact is from what i see if most of the cars running in the US over 5 yrs old were subjected to a rigorous MOT or TÜV most people would be taking the bus.


So, that dude down the street with the Volvo 240 he turned into a convertible by taking a Sawzall to the roof...you're saying that won't fly over there?

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Trav


Fact is from what i see if most of the cars running in the US over 5 yrs old were subjected to a rigorous MOT or TÜV most people would be taking the bus.


So, that dude down the street with the Volvo 240 he turned into a convertible by taking a Sawzall to the roof...you're saying that won't fly over there?

Thats a good one! Thanks i needed that today.

 

[FoxS]

skyship has introduced this notion of reverse quality control into this thread.

If manufacturers are intending vehicles to fail anyway just after extended warranty, then the contention that thin oil is inferior to thick oil is moot. Indeed 20 weight oil is over engineered since it enables an engine to last way beyond the extended warranty.

If true, the reverse quality control strategy is far more lucrative and serious a consumer concern than the thin oil strategy. And it has nothing to do with CAFE

Some other things that don't add up for me:

If you look at CR reliability survey, they have real world data that they publish when they have over 100 owners going back 10 years. In the category of engine issues: major, minor, cooling, the Japanese manufacturers gain almost perfect scores and the Europeans have a patchy record even within the regular warranty period.

Thin oil vs thick oil being a major factor in reliability just doesn't add up. In fact, one could argue that despite using thick oil, the Germans are not getting the reliability that others are achieving with thinner oil.

This focus on thin oil not being reliable is severely exaggerated in importance. The Brits posting here are surely aware of the numerous UK reliability studies that have had German cars squarely and deeply at the bottom of the reliability tables for well over a decade. Hey but that's ok because they have the best oil geeks in the world who can tell you how to minimize engine wear while everything else in the engine and vehicle breaks down. I can just see these owners, having paid way over the odds in depreciation maintenance and repair happy in the knowledge that despite all of these problems they have thick luscious world beating oil coating the internals of their static garage based engines. Perhaps they'll buy camera probes so they can really enjoy their engines.

 

[FoxS]

So the govts of all European countries and Japan put in place strict rules on road worthiness which in turn helps fuel economy as older vehicles are forced off the roads and those on the road are running as designed?

That sounds like a far greater infringement on freedom (and of course what we're really concerned about - the $ in my pocket), in the name of fuel economy, than CAFE.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
So the govts of all European countries and Japan put in place strict rules on road worthiness which in turn helps fuel economy as older vehicles are forced off the roads and those on the road are running as designed?

That sounds like a far greater infringement on freedom (and of course what we're really concerned about - the $ in my pocket), in the name of fuel economy, than CAFE.

So allowing people to keep junks on the road endangering not only themselves but others is freedom ?

 

[Clevy]

Guys
You haven't seen junk cars til you come to Saskatchewan. There aren't any inspections to be had although sometimes the cops will do a blitz in certain areas of the city trying to get junk off the road so as long as the vehicle has always been registered in Saskatchewan they don't have to be inspected.
Some of the nightmares driving on the road just defy logic. Holes in the floor,side windows made of plastic,burning so much oil you gotta either get in the other lane or drive a couple hundred yards back.
Floors rotted out so bad that they literally can use their feet flintstones style to stop. Most come off the reservations,where they don't need plates as long as they stay there. At least Ontario requires a certification when title changes hands.
And we don't use much salt,so cars last forever since the bodies don't rot.
Anyways I just thought I'd add

 

[Capa]

Originally Posted By: FoxS
skyship has introduced this notion of reverse quality control into this thread.

If manufacturers are intending vehicles to fail anyway just after extended warranty, then the contention that thin oil is inferior to thick oil is moot. Indeed 20 weight oil is over engineered since it enables an engine to last way beyond the extended warranty.

If true, the reverse quality control strategy is far more lucrative and serious a consumer concern than the thin oil strategy. And it has nothing to do with CAFE

Some other things that don't add up for me:

If you look at CR reliability survey, they have real world data that they publish when they have over 100 owners going back 10 years. In the category of engine issues: major, minor, cooling, the Japanese manufacturers gain almost perfect scores and the Europeans have a patchy record even within the regular warranty period.

Thin oil vs thick oil being a major factor in reliability just doesn't add up. In fact, one could argue that despite using thick oil, the Germans are not getting the reliability that others are achieving with thinner oil.

This focus on thin oil not being reliable is severely exaggerated in importance. The Brits posting here are surely aware of the numerous UK reliability studies that have had German cars squarely and deeply at the bottom of the reliability tables for well over a decade. Hey but that's ok because they have the best oil geeks in the world who can tell you how to minimize engine wear while everything else in the engine and vehicle breaks down. I can just see these owners, having paid way over the odds in depreciation maintenance and repair happy in the knowledge that despite all of these problems they have thick luscious world beating oil coating the internals of their static garage based engines. Perhaps they'll buy camera probes so they can really enjoy their engines.


X2 indeed. A lot of the arguments of the thick oil crowd don't add up, and, unfortunately, much of it is based off of unsubstantiated FUD, bereft of any evidence. It is obvious that the vehicles in the US are lasting as long as their owners want to keep them, despite CAFE and thin oils. The same is true in Europe, but they get the MPG penalty and apparently don't keep their vehicles quite as long.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Capa
Originally Posted By: FoxS
skyship has introduced this notion of reverse quality control into this thread.

If manufacturers are intending vehicles to fail anyway just after extended warranty, then the contention that thin oil is inferior to thick oil is moot. Indeed 20 weight oil is over engineered since it enables an engine to last way beyond the extended warranty.

If true, the reverse quality control strategy is far more lucrative and serious a consumer concern than the thin oil strategy. And it has nothing to do with CAFE

Some other things that don't add up for me:

If you look at CR reliability survey, they have real world data that they publish when they have over 100 owners going back 10 years. In the category of engine issues: major, minor, cooling, the Japanese manufacturers gain almost perfect scores and the Europeans have a patchy record even within the regular warranty period.

Thin oil vs thick oil being a major factor in reliability just doesn't add up. In fact, one could argue that despite using thick oil, the Germans are not getting the reliability that others are achieving with thinner oil.

This focus on thin oil not being reliable is severely exaggerated in importance. The Brits posting here are surely aware of the numerous UK reliability studies that have had German cars squarely and deeply at the bottom of the reliability tables for well over a decade. Hey but that's ok because they have the best oil geeks in the world who can tell you how to minimize engine wear while everything else in the engine and vehicle breaks down. I can just see these owners, having paid way over the odds in depreciation maintenance and repair happy in the knowledge that despite all of these problems they have thick luscious world beating oil coating the internals of their static garage based engines. Perhaps they'll buy camera probes so they can really enjoy their engines.


X2 indeed. A lot of the arguments of the thick oil crowd don't add up, and, unfortunately, much of it is based off of unsubstantiated FUD, bereft of any evidence. It is obvious that the vehicles in the US are lasting as long as their owners want to keep them, despite CAFE and thin oils. The same is true in Europe, but they get the MPG penalty and apparently don't keep their vehicles quite as long.



We don't drive or have the autobahn like Europe though. I'm not sure if I would trust a 20 grade in my mustang at full blast for hours on end. How we drive,on our sedated highway speeds doesn't really push any oil to its limit,so it's fine for our market.

 

[FoxS]

Originally Posted By: Trav

So allowing people to keep junks on the road endangering not only themselves but others is freedom ?


Cars don't endanger people. People endanger people. The irresponsible people will always find ways to endanger others, maybe by driving recklessly on the autobahn. It doesn't matter how many controls you put in place because its people endangering people.

What we need to concentrate on is banning video games that promote dangerous driving and longer incarceration for those who show they cannot be trusted.

 

[Hounds]

Nine pages so far (and countless others elsewhere) and we still are no closer to a consensus regarding 0W-20. We should run for Congress.

The take away is that there's no empirical evidence, no all-encompassing published research or data, that "proves" 0W-20 weight oil is "better" than 5W-20 weight oil, or 5w30 weight oil for that matter, in preventing wear or extending engine life. There is no shortage of speculation, war stories and hunches to go along with some guy's UOA that he thinks shows the way to the Holy Grail. And depending on where one lives, 0W-20 weight oil may enable Dr. Strangelove to start his Humber Super Snipe more easily than with the 5w30 weight oil the factory recommended a decade ago, but what does that really prove? It certainly doesn't prove that it's "better," only that it's good enough. And that's where these threads always end up.

 

[FoxS]

Originally Posted By: Capa

X2 indeed. A lot of the arguments of the thick oil crowd don't add up, and, unfortunately, much of it is based off of unsubstantiated FUD, bereft of any evidence. It is obvious that the vehicles in the US are lasting as long as their owners want to keep them, despite CAFE and thin oils. The same is true in Europe, but they get the MPG penalty and apparently don't keep their vehicles quite as long.



Well in Europe they apparently produce the best designed oil in the world but some of the worst real world reliability.

Btw, here's an interesting fact. Fords spec for 20 weight vs 30 weight oil is identical for almost all parameters except the wear rate being slightly higher. Has anyone on the thick oil side ever said what practical difference that wear rate difference means? Or how it compares to wear rates of prior generation oils?

The trade off in wear from modern 30 to modern 20 in Fords case is explicit, transparent and documented for anyone to comment on. Would love to hear a critique based on that information, with said critique referencing how those specified wear rates compare to those of the past.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Clevy


We don't drive or have the autobahn like Europe though. I'm not sure if I would trust a 20 grade in my mustang at full blast for hours on end. How we drive,on our sedated highway speeds doesn't really push any oil to its limit,so it's fine for our market.


I'm not really sure you'll find any places in Europe to drive full blast for "hours on end". Between restricted zones, traffic and construction, I imagine the spec'd oil would be fine. I think this autobahn thing gets overplayed a bit. Yeah, there are sections on which you can drive really fast, but not for hours on end without slowing down.

 

[Shannow]

No, because the thin crowd always come out with "show us the pile of failed engines", refusing to acknowledge that there is a wear trade off to economy.

I have said many many times that this still may mean a long useable life, but that there's a trade-off.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
No, because the thin crowd always come out with "show us the pile of failed engines", refusing to acknowledge that there is a wear trade off to economy.

I have said many many times that this still may mean a long useable life, but that there's a trade-off.


I tend to agree with you Shannow however considering the cold temps we get here(-40) would say a 0w30 do anything for wear considering the oil barely gets to temp even after long run times.
I agree there is a trade off when temps are not severe but in my climate,in the winter,is a 20 grade ideal,then come summer move up to a 30 grade.
My hemi almost never sees 3000rpms and at highway speeds is only 2000rpms or less.
I want what is best for my engine and will take your advice.

 

[FoxS]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
No, because the thin crowd always come out with "show us the pile of failed engines", refusing to acknowledge that there is a wear trade off to economy.

I have said many many times that this still may mean a long useable life, but that there's a trade-off.


Agreed and as I just posted, Fords wear trade off is explicit.

So can we have some quantification from those against thin oil on what that wear trade off means especially since we have some real manufacturer data on it?

And where does it rank in importance compared to other reliability concerns that limit the life of a vehicle.

The fact that nothing of significance has been put forward leads me to conclude that there is no significant quantification that thinner oil is bad. The complaint from a few is seriously exaggerated.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
No, because the thin crowd always come out with "show us the pile of failed engines", refusing to acknowledge that there is a wear trade off to economy.

I have said many many times that this still may mean a long useable life, but that there's a trade-off.


Yes, because no one has ever put out any evidence to suggest that there's an increase in wear--and I can't even really understand why there would be, or what the mechanism would be for this increased wear by using thinner oils.

In the past, you've said that there's less headroom with thinner oils. All else being equal, I could agree with that (although all else isn't always equal, and OEM's that spec thinner oils tend to employ other strategies to mitigate the risk of a lubrication failure). Headroom in the event of catastrophic event, e.g. the oil not having a thick enough film at the bearing is one thing, but more wear? Honestly, I don't understand how reducing friction necessarily results in a trade-off with more wear, and I've never seen any evidence to support this claim. I'm always looking to learn though, so if you can provide some I'd love to take a look at it.

 

[Cup of Joe]

Shannow has never stated there is an increased wear rate for lower viscosity lubricants. Rather he has argued that as viscosity decreases the engineering safety margin also decreases.

And when exactly did 30wts become thick? Some of the current blends have a HTHS of 3.0-3.2.