0w20 or 5w20?
- Thread starter zimmerDN
- Start date
- Status
What's GF-4 and GF-3?
That writeup from mobil1.com is a bit off. On the back of the 0w20 bottle, it says that it pours at -65* (i believe) and does not have a Chrysler spec on the back.
Here's what I think - Don't compare the older SAE 20 oils to the xW-20's available today.
The relatively high Noack volatility (22%), wax content from Grp I solvent refining processes, and the fact that in 1997-1998, the SAE J300 Viscosity chart shifted for the xW ratings make the comparison apples to oranges.
Sure, viscosity is viscosity, whether it's motor oil, syrup or Wesson oil. But the lubricating performance of a bottle of motor oil is dependant on much more than just the SAE viscosity listed in the API donut.
ILSAC (International Lubricants Standards and Acceptance Committee - mainly composed of Japanese and American automaker representatives) designations for oil performance. GF-4 is the latest spec., but is backward compatible with GF-1 through GF-3.
Glad to hear your fuel economy with your 2.3 L 5-speed has been good. A fair number of owners of this combination have reported results in this range, but you're the first person I've seen who's broken 40 mpg with a 2.3 L. My best result to-date with my 3i (2.0 L 5-speed) was 41.75 mpg and my worst was just under 33 mpg (1st tank while breaking-in the engine). (Note: Like you I'm keeping my results using a spreadsheet program and am also posting them at http://www.brianbauer.org. See results for 2005 Mazda 3 2.0 L manual transmission; mine are the ones for Chesterfield, VA.)
With regard for your 0w20 motor oil recommendation, one reason why I'm still not sold on using 20 wt oils in my Mazda is from what I've read Mazda makes this recommendation ONLY for their cars sold in the U.S. For identical cars sold in the U.K. and Australia, Mazda doesn't recommend using 20 wt. In fact, from what I've read in the U.K. (which clearly has a milder climate than most of the U.S.) the dealers recommend against using 5w-20. So if 5w-20 is the "best thing" for our engines, why doesn't Mazda recommend it for their cars sold in other countries?
Of course, my attitudes could change down the road, but for now I plan to continue using 5w-10w-30 in my 3. If I did choose to use 20w it would only be a pure synthetic like Mobil 1.
Once I've seen some U.O.A.'s for engines using 20 wt oils with 150-200K miles on them without showing any problems, then I'll consider changing using these lighter weight oils (at least in the winter). For now at least experience has taught me that using 30 wt definitely won't harm my engine. My last car was an '82 Toyota Supra that I drove 250K miles without a single internal engine problem over 23 years. Still ran great when I sold her, but skin cancer (rust) sadly was taking a toll.
[ March 07, 2006, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: CDTMAZDA3 ]
I choose to go with 5w20 because I'm under warranty and it provides better gas milesage. From the used oil analysis that have been posted, I have no reason to believe the engine will fail any sooner than it would with a 5w30 oil.
I only recommended the 0w20 because it has a better cold start-up flow rate. Personally, I use 5w20 in my Mazda3. In fact, I'm getting close to my next OC which I'll be throwing in some Pennzoil Platinum 5w20.
I only recommended the 0w20 because it has a better cold start-up flow rate. Personally, I use 5w20 in my Mazda3. In fact, I'm getting close to my next OC which I'll be throwing in some Pennzoil Platinum 5w20.
If using 20 wt makes a measurable difference in your gas mileage vs 30 wt my results haven't shown it. I used 5w-20 in my Mazda from the purchase date (March 1) through late April last year (0 - approx 3,700 miles) and have used 5-30 and 10w30 ever since (now approaching 18K miles). My fuel economy results definitely didn't drop when I switched to 30 wt and in fact they've actually improved slightly. Of course I assume additional break-in miles contributed to this.
[ March 07, 2006, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: CDTMAZDA3 ]
I'm glad you didn't lose any MPG when switching from a 20-weight to a 30-weight.
I on the other hand am completely happy with my 20-weight.
I on the other hand am completely happy with my 20-weight.
Glad to hear it. The MZ3 definitely is satisfying car to drive and represents a good value. So far I haven't experienced any issues with mine and I'm hoping this trend will continue for some time.quote:
Originally posted by mshu7:
I'm glad you didn't lose any MPG when switching from a 20-weight to a 30-weight.
I on the other hand am completely happy with my 20-weight.
Zoom-zoom!
I totally agree with your statments. I love driving it, esp. with the 5-spd. The handling is amazing for a car in it's class and it makes it a blast to drive! I have only had a couple minor warranty items that were fixed w/o any problems. The more I drive it, the more I love it!
I of course agree with you. The only negative things I have to say about my first Mazda are:
1) The paint seems to be somewhat fragile from what I've read from other owners. Still, this seems to be a common issue today which is probably connected to the switch to more enviromental-friendly water-based paints. I chose to have 3-M clear vinyl film applied to several common high-wear areas right after I bought my car and also installed mud guards behind all four wheels. These measures apparently have helped-or I've just been just lucky since after a year I still have no dings or scratches on my car so far(knock-on-wood.)
2) The quality of the seat fabrics and the carpeting doesn't seem to be as heavy-duty as what I've had on the Toyotas I've owned. (Note: I've installed seat covers on my front buckets and add'l clear vinyl mats to protect the carpeting.)
I've read where some MZ3 owners have already needed to have their seat covers replaced under warranty.
3) The performance of the car's a/c is fairly weak. (My car is rally white-which seems to help a lot). This seems to be a common complaint raised by MZ3 owners.
4) I don't like the fact that the car's a/c compressor is wired to run automatically if you set the vent controls to any position except left of the center (ie floor position). This just wastes gas and hurts performance IMO. I've read of a way to defeat this and plan to do so when the weather breaks.
(Apologies for for getting off-topic...)
[ March 07, 2006, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: CDTMAZDA3 ]
Good to hear that my mod is gaining popularity!
Here's what I think - Don't compare the older SAE 20 oils to the xW-20's available today.
The relatively high Noack volatility (22%), wax content from Grp I solvent refining processes, and the fact that in 1997-1998, the SAE J300 Viscosity chart shifted for the xW ratings make the comparison apples to oranges.
Sure, viscosity is viscosity, whether it's motor oil, syrup or Wesson oil. But the lubricating performance of a bottle of motor oil is dependant on much more than just the SAE viscosity listed in the API donut.
My point, exactly. The much poorer quality straight 20weights of old were good enough back then. The new, GF-4, SM 5-20's are so much better, it's not even close. Cold or at operating temps, the new 5-20's are simply fantastic.
I was checking out the current M1 stock at W*M. 5w-20 and 0w-20 right next to each other. 5w-20 carried a few more specs. I'm sure the products are overall quite similar. I wonder though, what's the point...just for the sake of having 2 to choose from? They did it with 30 weights. Did Mobil possibly get a lot of cries when they discontinued 0w-20 for a while? I'm not even sure what I would use, but in a 5w-20, why NOT just use dino? I have some Havoline 5w-20 here for a moly fix, but I'm pretty confused about why Mobil 1 even comes in a 5w-20 except for people afraid to VOID warranty???? Could someone make a temp/visc graph or plot of these 2 oils and maybe one other like MC 5w-20?
- Status