0w20 or 0w30

[MakeshiftMonkeyFort]

It's not a typo, it's mistake/misuse that MANY people make, and it's usually done just before they tell everybody else how wrong they are.

Lol. Do you feel better now?

 

[MakeshiftMonkeyFort]

It’s not a typo it’s a misunderstanding. Which permeates the rest of your posts.

Then show me why or you’re just trolling.

 

[tessaseveride]

I can't take anyone who tries to cite oil testing from ProjectFarm seriously.

 

[OVERKILL]

I’m sorry I hurt your feelings.

FRAM filters aren’t the best. That’s not trolling… unless you’re a shill. Some of their filters are good, but their filtration and bypass valves for even their premium lines aren’t compliant with Subaru OEM specs. The new American blues made by them aren’t as good as the previous units. It’s well known in the Subaru community.

The filtration of the OG Ultra was the best on the market.
Aftermarket filters having a different bypass pressure than OE isn't new, and isn't exclusive to FRAM.

That’s not trolling. That’s facts. If it is objectionable to your opinions, take it up with the analysis by MrSubaru. The SOA filters FRAM is making for Subaru are inferior to the previously sourced parts.

Can you present these facts? And what exactly do they have to do with this thread?

Pennzoil advertises their 0w protects like 5w at cold temperatures while flowing like 0w. It’s on their bottles. Anyone can see it.

That doesn't make any sense. If it flowed like a 0W-xx it would be labelled a 0W-xx. A 5W-xx doesn't have any inherently higher protection than a 0W-xx, that sounds like word salad designed to placate the folks that have no idea what the Winter grade is, or how it's arrived at.

Furthermore, lower base oil viscosity DOES, IN FACT translate to lower multigrade viscosity. ProjectFarm did an entire video on this.

Project Farm can't measure base oil viscosity.

Are you trying to say that a lower base oil viscosity translates into a lower Winter grade? Because a 4cSt base oil can be used to blend a 0W-20, 5W-20, 0W-30, 5w30, 0W-40, 5W-40...etc.

The type of base oil plays an important role, PAO has inherently far better cold flow characteristics than its peers, even when heavier.

Bearing clearances/tolerances do have something to do with oil flow. That’s why you can’t run 50w straight oil in everything. If an oil is too heavy, it won’t lubricate effectively at target temps. This is why manufacturers make recommendations and oil fill caps don’t have “Whatever you want” stamped on them.

Tolerance is the allowed variation from spec, that has nothing to do with oil flow. Target temperatures for most engines are very similar, it's the highest anticipated temperature (which is influenced by sump size, oil cooler presence and size...etc), coupled with parameters like bearing width, that influence final oil grade selection by the OEM.

For example:
- BMW spec'd both 5w30/0W-30 (LL-01) and 10W-60 for the same engine.
- Ford spec'd both 5W-20 and 5W-50 for the same engine, depending on whether the vehicle had the "track pack" package or not.
- FCA spec's both 0W-20 and 0W-40 for the same bearing clearances and design/architecture (5.7L vs 6.4L) because one is mass produced and the other is targeted at the performance crowd.

There are many more examples.

A multigrade 50 won’t lubricate the same as a multigrade 20 at normal operating temps the same as 10w won’t lubricate the same as 0w at cold temps. Clearances are why engineers dictate the viscosity recommendations for any piece of machinery. It’s why there are a lot of different grades and types of oil. If it didn’t matter, why would companies go through the expense of having different production lines?

You are conflating two different things here.
- Using an inappropriate Winter grade for the prevailing conditions can result in the oil not pumping. Doesn't matter what the SAE grade is at that point. This is why we have the different Winter grades.
- A multigrade 5W-50 will pump and lubricate just fine at the same operating temps as a 5W-20, as the Ford example above demonstrates.

Manufacturers have been chasing thinner and thinner oils in the pursuit of the fractional gains in fuel economy that this yields, which becomes quite significant when applied to the volume of these vehicles they produce. At the same time, you'll often see those same manufacturers produce performance versions that spec a much heavier oil. GM went from spec'ing both 5w30 and 15W-50 for the Camaro and Corvette (street/track) to just a 0W-40 that could be used for both situations.

You cannot move up to any multigrade rating you want. Ask anyone that does endurance racing. If an oil is too heavy, it’ll kill an engine just like an oil that’s too thin. If my engine with its bearing clearances was operating at 250+ degrees, I could run 0w30 or 0w40… but it doesn’t, so I stick with multigrade 20. I consulted the charts from Driven Racing Oils to inform my decision.

You can, but you'll be leaving some power and fuel economy on the table. Again, look at the Ford example, if what you claimed was remotely true, all of the Mustang that spec'd 5W-50 would have blown up, since the design was the same as for the engine that spec'd 5W-20. Furthermore, they'd all blow up in the winter, as ambient temperature has a much greater impact on viscosity than the difference between the various grades at operating temperature.

If API doesn’t certify oil, why are there API SN and SP certifications on motor oil containers? Why do they have their own logo and seal?

If API doesn’t certify oil, why do the have their EOLCS system?

For the kids in class that don’t know, that stands for Engine Oil Licensing and CERTIFICATION System.

Oil companies (and additive companies like Lubrizol, Infineum, Afton...etc) do the API testing themselves and then claim compliance. The API doesn't actually test the product and certify it, like say, Porsche does. It's predominantly an honor-based system with some random sampling thrown in to ensure that the companies are being honest.

Also said I was CONSIDERING adding water wetter when I change my coolant, not that I have decided on it. I haven’t researched it enough, so thank you for your input… but based on everything else you’ve stated for feelings behind you striking my post, I’m definitely going to seek more opinions.

Coolant, like engine oil, is a formulated product which includes anti-corrosion and other additives. Water of course doesn't, which is why additives like those you've mentioned are beneficial in a system when somebody is running just raw water.

 

[MakeshiftMonkeyFort]

First up: thank you for an actually substantive reply instead of just clanging around and making a lot of noise like the other... boys. This is genuinely appreciated, even if there will still be some disagreement.

The filtration of the OG Ultra was the best on the market.
Aftermarket filters having a different bypass pressure than OE isn't new, and isn't exclusive to FRAM.

I already stated FRAM's premium lines are good. The SOA Blue filters made by FRAM are comparable to the orange filter. It's cardboard and plastic. MrSubaru dived into it. The SOA blues made by FRAM are not the Ultras. You can look it up. I saw it, retained it, moved on.

And I agree: aftermarket filters have different bypass pressures. That's not the problem. The problem is the delta between the filtering pressure and the bypass pressure.

The delta between operating pressure of the FRAM and the bypass valve on their site is too close for my comfort. These guys did an informal experiment on filtering pressures:

.

I don't agree with their protocols and find the host annoying, but they are what they are.

FRAM also states their filters filter at a certain rate for particles larger than 20 microns. They don't state the smallest particles they filter and I don't like that.

20 micron particles aren’t responsible for the worst engine wear. That goes to 10 micron particles and smaller because they can actually find their way into the bearings and cause wear.

WIX does. The XP filters to a stated 13micron on their site and has a higher bypass pressure rating, closer to OEM. It may have a higher operating pressure (unknown), but I like the combination more than FRAM. That's my opinion and you have yours. It's my equipment and it's my choice, but that decision is backed by evidence.

Yeah, the 13 micron filtration is still larger than the most dangerous particles, but it’s closer to better in my opinion and I’m not at the point of juryrigging a diesel bypass system to get down to 2 micron filtration.

Maybe when I’m out of warranty.

Moving on.

Can you present these facts? And what exactly do they have to do with this thread?

The OP is asking advice on maintaining his vehicle. Part of that is oil filtration. I included it.

That doesn't make any sense. If it flowed like a 0W-xx it would be labelled a 0W-xx. A 5W-xx doesn't have any inherently higher protection than a 0W-xx, that sounds like word salad designed to placate the folks that have no idea what the Winter grade is, or how it's arrived at.

Here are data sheets from Castrol:
https://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/...FD8D7DB8025871900608AF0/$File/bpxe-ay4hle.pdf
https://msdspds.castrol.com/bpglis/...792CC4F8025863A004DAD00/$File/wepp-bwbjkn.pdf

The 0w20 is thinner at 100C than the 5w30. Not by much (and negligible at that), but the base 5w is indeed more viscous than the base 0w at the same multigrade rating.

Admittedly, I haven't looked into this for a couple years and don't remember it being that close, so oil manufacturers have probably improved their viscosity modifiers. I'm still going to run what I run.

As for the video, I can't find it. I also didn't look to hard for it based on what I turned up from a search on manufacturer's sites.

Pennzoil Ultra Platinum doesn't show a viscosity difference between 0w20 and 5w20 at 100C and I only looked at Castrol and Pennzoil because they're pretty good about posting real info in their material sheets.

This may have been solved since I last looked at it, or when I saw a difference I may have made an overcorrection. It was a while ago that I stumbled on the possible variance, so it may be outdated information or, again, an overcorrection.

But Castrol shows there is a difference!!! Lol

Project Farm can't measure base oil viscosity.

Correct. Blackstone does it for him.

Are you trying to say that a lower base oil viscosity translates into a lower Winter grade? Because a 4cSt base oil can be used to blend a 0W-20, 5W-20, 0W-30, 5w30, 0W-40, 5W-40...etc.

I don't know how the sausage is made, but I've already covered this from my perspective and am moving on.

The type of base oil plays an important role, PAO has inherently far better cold flow characteristics than its peers, even when heavier.

Tolerance is the allowed variation from spec, that has nothing to do with oil flow. Target temperatures for most engines are very similar, it's the highest anticipated temperature (which is influenced by sump size, oil cooler presence and size...etc), coupled with parameters like bearing width, that influence final oil grade selection by the OEM.

I already admitted I confused the terminology between tolerance and clearance when I wrote the first draft of the initial post. I also made the corrections. At this point you need to let it go because proving someone was wrong once isn't going to do anything except make you just another donkey.

Clearances do, indeed, have something to do with oil flow, and that's what I was talking about.

When choosing what I was going to use in my vehicle, I consulted my mechanic and the reference material he told me about.

Driven has a catalogue you can download from this link if you're interested: rt-5996-catalog.html

For my clearances (thanks again for pointing out my error) and operating temperatures, my engine is recommended right on the boundary between 0w20 and 5w20. According to DRIVEN, there's no need to go up to a thicker multigrade like 0w30. I won't be getting any extra protection and it's also more difficult to source.

I decided on 0w20 because that's the easiest and least expensive oil I can get that still meets ILSAC/API recommendations by the vehicle's OEM.

For example:
- BMW spec'd both 5w30/0W-30 (LL-01) and 10W-60 for the same engine.

I don't drive a BMW, so I didn't research what it needs. I also won't because I don't need to and I don't care.

What I can say is that Subaru also accepts 5w30 in the list of approved fluids in the owner's manual for high ambient temperatures. Down the road, depending on how my engine ages, I may make the move to run that in summer as it's also easy to get and inexpensive.

- Ford spec'd both 5W-20 and 5W-50 for the same engine, depending on whether the vehicle had the "track pack" package or not.

Same as above. I don't deal with Fords. I don't like what the bean counters have done to the otherwise interesting engineering.

- FCA spec's both 0W-20 and 0W-40 for the same bearing clearances and design/architecture (5.7L vs 6.4L) because one is mass produced and the other is targeted at the performance crowd.

We already covered this. For that engine with its clearances and operating temps at a track, it makes sense. I don't track my daily driver so it's irrelevant.

There are many more examples.


You are conflating two different things here.
- Using an inappropriate Winter grade for the prevailing conditions can result in the oil not pumping. Doesn't matter what the SAE grade is at that point. This is why we have the different Winter grades.

I never conflated these things. I just didn't explain myself to totality. We're good and in agreement.

- A multigrade 5W-50 will pump and lubricate just fine at the same operating temps as a 5W-20, as the Ford example above demonstrates.

This is where we disagree based on what I've read and sourced.

I don't care about Ford recommendations because I don't drive a Ford, I don't own a Ford, and neither of those things will change anytime soon.

For this exact situation, I'm basing where I'm coming from entirely and exclusively on the bearing clearances of the FB25 engine and the operating recommendations supplied by my mechanic and the charts from Driven.

My mechanic keeps my helicopter in the air. He uses similar criteria and decades of experience to inform his decisions on what to use to keep that helicopter in the air.

No offense, but I'm sticking to where I'm at regardless what Ford states.

Manufacturers have been chasing thinner and thinner oils in the pursuit of the fractional gains in fuel economy that this yields, which becomes quite significant when applied to the volume of these vehicles they produce. At the same time, you'll often see those same manufacturers produce performance versions that spec a much heavier oil. GM went from spec'ing both 5w30 and 15W-50 for the Camaro and Corvette (street/track) to just a 0W-40 that could be used for both situations.

Correct. Chasing economy has made other problems pop up, which is why I take prophylactic approaches to mitigating them before they cause serious issues... or at least prolong those serious issues.

However, this is irrelevant for a daily driver AND what I actually wrote.

A heavier oil at the track will lose viscosity as the operating temp of the engine gets up to track temperatures, keeping the bearings supplied with lubrication when a thinner oil would burn off or cause other problems.

We're not in disagreement and this is why, in your own post, you differentiated between street and track use.

Street. Track. You pointed it out yourself.

What's being confused here is application, and it's not being confused by me.

This is a daily driver. The charts for how it's used don't indicate I need to do anything other than what the manufacture recommends. Their engineers say 0w20. The charts say 0w20, and maybe 5w20 depending on temperature. Subaru says 5w30 may be used if it's really hot.

I get maybe 15 days in summer that reach the temperatures I'd feel better using a heavier oil, and those days are why I use Ceratec. Does it actually protect anything? I don't know and I won't know unless I pull this engine out and conduct an autopsy. My engine seems to be happy, though... and as long as it stays that way I'm not going to deviate from plan.

Can I use a heavier oil? Sure... IF THE APPLICATION AND CONDITIONS DEMAND IT.

Mine don't. Moving on.

Based on Blackstone reports and my own experience, in addition to professional advice and engineering recommendations, I see no reason to deviate from 0w20.

That's not to say I couldn't do something different... but just because we can doesn't mean we should. I acknowledge my horizons of ignorance and right now this is what's called "forcing the correct" in medicine. I'm comfortable and confident in my position and it is backed up by professionals and people I trust.

But you do you.

Moving on.

You can, but you'll be leaving some power and fuel economy on the table. Again, look at the Ford example, if what you claimed was remotely true, all of the Mustang that spec'd 5W-50 would have blown up, since the design was the same as for the engine that spec'd 5W-20. Furthermore, they'd all blow up in the winter, as ambient temperature has a much greater impact on viscosity than the difference between the various grades at operating temperature.

This is a conclusion reached by false assumptions. I was specifically talking about daily drivers.

And again: planned obsolescence is a key criteria for Ford bean counters, so I don't really trust what they recommend.

But, you do bring up an interesting point: 5w50 performance oil would cause Ford engines to blow up.

I know the Coyote motor had some issues with oiling. I don't know if it still does because I'm not interested in owning a vehicle with one, but let's go on a little journey...

Mustangs are purchased by some "racer boys," and they have to bolt on and use every performance part known to man... even if it's only applicable to track use. The 5w50 you site would be great on a long road course like Mid-Ohio or Laguna Seca...

But it may not be applicable to the stress of going to CrossFit and revving the motor while at normal street temperatures in order to look cool after slipping a disc. I don't know these things, but based on what I pulled up from driven and a quick google search on clearances, a multi-50 wouldn't be applicable unless the engine is seeing sustained operating temps above 220 degrees.

Is there a possibility that Coyote operating temps weren't high enough to benefit from the 5w50 performance oil? Given the bearing clearances and Driven: absolutely.

Is there a possibility it also caused some owners to experience failure? Maybe. I don't know... and I'm not interested in finding out.

Can you run it? Yes. Is it the right oil? That's debatable from the hard numbers previously stated. Ultimately it's up to you and your opinion, which will differ because you and I have had different experiences and have been exposed to different information.

For me? Nope. I'd stick to the 5w20 recommended, or maybe a 5w30 depending on my mechanic's recommendations, what I saw from Blackstone, and my own eyes.

Oil companies (and additive companies like Lubrizol, Infineum, Afton...etc) do the API testing themselves and then claim compliance. The API doesn't actually test the product and certify it, like say, Porsche does. It's predominantly an honor-based system with some random sampling thrown in to ensure that the companies are being honest.

I didn't say API tested it. I'm saying API certifies it, hence why it's called "API Certification." If the manufacturer lies in order to secure the seal, liability is on them... but it's still an API certification because it's their name and seal on the bottle.

This is another conclusion based on assumption.

Coolant, like engine oil, is a formulated product which includes anti-corrosion and other additives. Water of course doesn't, which is why additives like those you've mentioned are beneficial in a system when somebody is running just raw water.

Agreed. I've seen some stuff saying there's a 5ish degree difference with the AMSOil coolant additive when added to a 50/50 mix on their website. That difference would put me consistently in the 210-220 range, which I like more than seeing north of 225 occasionally.

Is this obsessive? Totally... but I'm a pilot. If there's a failure at work, I can hopefully make a survivable landing with autorotation, but I'd prefer the machine continues to operate as intended.

That perspective is applied to everything I rely on that's mechanical.

Thank you for an actual intelligent contribution to this discussion. There are some things I'll take into consideration as a result of your time and information.

In the first draft, I included expertise, but I don't know anything about your background. I didn't delete that as an insult, rather because it's unknown. Cheers.

 

[MakeshiftMonkeyFort]

I can't take anyone who tries to cite oil testing from ProjectFarm seriously.

No worries, mate. I don't take people seriously that throw bait from the sidelines like someone that peaked in high school.

Kisses.

 

[tessaseveride]

No worries, mate. I don't take people seriously that throw bait from the sidelines like someone that peaked in high school.

Kisses.

Well, "throwing bait from the sidelines" is about all this thread is good for. The thick vs thin debate goes on every day and this thread is nothing new. Seems like you are a forum user that was previously banned and came back in order to spark a debate about thick or thin. You've shown a very low understanding of automotive lubrication outside of your knowledge from YouTube University and somehow you feel like the irrelevant fact that you're a pilot makes you more credible.

 

[MakeshiftMonkeyFort]

Well, "throwing bait from the sidelines" is about all this thread is good for. The thick vs thin debate goes on every day and this thread is nothing new. Seems like you are a forum user that was previously banned and came back in order to spark a debate about thick or thin. You've shown a very low understanding of automotive lubrication outside of your knowledge from YouTube University and somehow you feel like the irrelevant fact that you're a pilot makes you more credible.

Lol. Nope on all fronts. I’m not the one continuing the “thick and thin” debate. You are. I have my reasons for my position. So far all you’re good for is impotence… intellectual, factual, and otherwise. Do with that what you will.

I never said being a pilot made me more knowledgable. What are you talking about, Nancy Drew?

I said I’m a pilot. Pilots are pretty OCD if you know any. That and my mechanics have informed my perspective on maintaining my equipment. That’s all I said about being a pilot.

Do you even read, bro?

And your final assumption matches the rest of the limp point of view you contribute to all of your [excrement] posting. I’m a formerly banned member? LOL! I’m not the one being a little can’t understand normal thinking in this conversation, buddy.

You need to take a look in the mirror because this is a you problem, not a me problem.

 

[tessaseveride]

Lol. Nope on all fronts. I’m not the one continuing the “thick and thin” debate. You are. I have my reasons for my position. So far all you’re good for is impotence… intellectual, factual, and otherwise. Do with that what you will.

I never said being a pilot made me more knowledgable. What are you talking about, Nancy Drew?

I said I’m a pilot. Pilots are pretty OCD if you know any. That and my mechanics have informed my perspective on maintaining my equipment. That’s all I said about being a pilot.

Do you even read, bro?

And your final assumption matches the rest of the limp point of view you contribute to all of your [excrement] posting. I’m a formerly banned member? LOL! I’m not the one being a little can’t understand normal thinking in this conversation, buddy.

You need to take a look in the mirror because this is a you problem, not a me problem.

I said you feel like that fact that you're a pilot makes you more credible, not knowledgeable. It is quite clear you are not knowledgeable about oil. Being OCD has no bearing on how oil functions. Neither does being a mechanic.

 

[dnewton3]

This thread has gone both sideways and upside down; it's a mess.
Locked.