2004 Mazda 6s, Havoline 5W-20, 4070mi (oil), 16080 mi (car)

[LubeOiler]

This is an excellent report and an impressive lube. well add it to my have to have list then! In the 60's we used 30wt in the summer and 20wt in the winter for most all cars in the midwest.I for one was one of the last to change over to multiweight oil.We have come a long way with oil since then and is it more about the oil or the engine design that keeps us all from running a IMPRESSIVE LUBE like HAVOLINE 5/20 in our car today.The biggest question is will it hold up as well as the 5/30 or 10/30. I for one would feel better if a oil sheers down to a 20 wt. from 30 as opposed to a 5/20 going to a 10wt..So is this robust add. package enough to protect the engine under grueling,sever conditions for only 3000 miles to use in the SE-R & WRX engines that call for high viscosity.If 5/20 can be run by Ford safely then why not all gasoline engines.

 

[AndyH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LubeOiler:
So is this robust add. package enough to protect the engine under grueling,sever conditions for only 3000 miles to use in the SE-R & WRX engines that call for high viscosity.

---

Since when does Subaru spec a high viscosity oil for the WRX? My WRX STi Owner's Manual recommends 5w-30 primarily, although other weights can be used as well. Here's the chart from the Impreza Service Manual:

 

[LubeOiler]

Ya I ment to correct that but it is still a 30 wt. Like my SE-R and the Camry none call for a 20wt. Would you use the 5/20 in your car if Subaru doesn't recommend it.

 

[Terry]

Just as a followup on the Ca issue, I contacted Ryan at Bklabs and confirmed that; "the calibration curve had a bit too much curve", to quote Ryan Stark at Bklabs.

I appreciate his honesty and openess and getting us an answer and why Dyson Analysis does business with this lab.

Calibration of ICP/Spectro machines in labs that do thousands of tests a month must be constantly monitored and in this case 2 tests slipped past.

This havoline 5w-20 UOA test and a QS 4x4 VOA.

You are welcome nelsonlwn, no one or lab is perfect and I trust the ones that address problems even if it was an internal calibration issue that QA/QC didn't catch.

 

[nelsonlwn]

Blackstone Labs has identified they had a calibration problem with their spectrometer that affected calcium only. They re-ran my sample. The revised UOA is below:


Aluminum 5 2
Chromium 1 1
Iron 7 14
Copper 0 0
Lead 0 0
Tin 0 0
Moly 384 46
Potassium 1 0
Boron 24 6
Silicon 12 15
Sodium 3 3
Calcium 1674 1602
Magnesium 31 12
Phosphorous 662 600
Zinc 858 699
Vis (SUS) 49.5 50.1
Insolubles 0.1 0.2
TBN 3.6 N/A

Thanks to Terry for working this with Blackstone to get the accurate readings.

Kudos to Blackstone also. All companies make errors. They admitted the error and made it right.