2006 Accord 2.4 - PU 5w20 Honda A01 - 3000 mi.

[Sayjac]

^^^^^Another excellent post here dnewton and fortunately for the greatest majority who read and post here you are preaching to the choir regarding this specific oci and oci's in general.

I also give you credit for your persistence, though as I posted here and elsewhere previously, if posting history is any indication your directed comments and advice will go unheeded. In this case, it would be great to be wrong though.

I like your latest offer too.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
Originally Posted By: Clevy

I want oil to get to all the parts ASAP, and synthetic does a better job at it hands down. Sure, may not be much of a difference but it is a difference.

In your climate PU 5W-20 doesn't flow any faster than a premium 5W-20 dino. Just because an oil is "synthetic" doesn't automatically mean it has improved viscometrics and PU 5W-20 doesn't, not with a HTHSV of 2.7cP and low 158 VI.

If you want an oil that flows faster PP 5W-20 would be about the best choice in a 5W-20 grade due to it's higher 169 VI and slightly lower HTHSV of 2.6cP; it is a lighter oil.

Of course if you really want to maximize flow on start-up then an OEM 0W-20 like TGMO with it's 216 VI is the way to go.

 

[Hounds]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
. . . I want oil to get to all the parts ASAP, and synthetic does a better job at it hands down. . . . Sure, may not be much of a difference but it is a difference.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
. . . In your climate PU 5W-20 doesn't flow any faster than a premium 5W-20 dino. Just because an oil is "synthetic" doesn't automatically mean it has improved viscometrics, and PU 5W-20 doesn't, not with a HTHSV of 2.7cP and low 158 VI. . . .

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
If you want an oil that flows faster PP 5W-20 would be about the best choice in a 5W-20 grade due to it's higher 169 VI and slightly lower HTHSV of 2.6cP; it is a lighter oil. Of course if you really want to maximize flow on start-up then an OEM 0W-20 like TGMO with it's 216 VI is the way to go.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
. . . In your application, in FL, the start-up flow of any decent oil, regardless of brand or base stock, is moot! . . . (Emphasis added.)

dnewton3=QED. Emphasis added for, well, Emphasis.

 

[gregk24]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: gregk24
Originally Posted By: Clevy

I want oil to get to all the parts ASAP, and synthetic does a better job at it hands down. Sure, may not be much of a difference but it is a difference.

In your climate PU 5W-20 doesn't flow any faster than a premium 5W-20 dino. Just because an oil is "synthetic" doesn't automatically mean it has improved viscometrics and PU 5W-20 doesn't, not with a HTHSV of 2.7cP and low 158 VI.

If you want an oil that flows faster PP 5W-20 would be about the best choice in a 5W-20 grade due to it's higher 169 VI and slightly lower HTHSV of 2.6cP; it is a lighter oil.

Of course if you really want to maximize flow on start-up then an OEM 0W-20 like TGMO with it's 216 VI is the way to go.



I really considered using TGMO...but I think Ill just stick with the SOPUS family and use PP 0w20 year round. That is if the car likes it. I have it waiting to go in next OCI.

 

[CATERHAM]

As I mentioned in your other thread, unless you like spending money go with the cheaper and somewhat lighter PP 5W-20 instead.

 

[gregk24]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
As I mentioned in your other thread, unless you like spending money go with the cheaper and somewhat lighter PP 5W-20 instead.


Yeah, I have already bought the 0w20 though. Plus I like the fact that it has a lower NOACK. Which points to better basestocks.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Of course if you really want to maximize flow on start-up then an OEM 0W-20 like TGMO with it's 216 VI is the way to go.

And that's the important point. A synthetic does not automatically flow better than a conventional. But, a synthetic allows one to find better cold cranking specifications and a much higher VI.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
As I mentioned in your other thread, unless you like spending money go with the cheaper and somewhat lighter PP 5W-20 instead.


Yeah, I have already bought the 0w20 though. Plus I like the fact that it has a lower NOACK. Which points to better basestocks.

Fair enough, but don't make the very common mistake on BITOG of judging an oil by it's base stocks alone or one metric, least of all NOACK. In your application, PP 0W-20 is not a better lubricant than PP 5W-20.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
... but don't make the very common mistake on BITOG of judging an oil by it's base stocks alone or one metric ...


No truer words be spoken. I'd like to write that backwards and staple it to some folks' foreheads, so that when the wake up in the morning and look into the mirror, it'd be the first thing they see.


Too many people judge a lube and filter (or any product for that matter), in a vacuum. They don't look at their application and determine what is needed; rather, they look at marketing hype and PDS data and decide what they "want".

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Too many people judge a lube and filter (or any product for that matter), in a vacuum. They don't look at their application and determine what is needed; rather, they look at marketing hype and PDS data and decide what they "want".

Couldn't agree more.
I'd also add that brand loyalty or reputation (which really falls under marketing hype) distorts a more objective view point.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Too many people judge a lube and filter (or any product for that matter), in a vacuum. They don't look at their application and determine what is needed; rather, they look at marketing hype and PDS data and decide what they "want".

Couldn't agree more.
I'd also add that brand loyalty or reputation (which really falls under marketing hype) distorts a more objective view point.


I more often refer to it as brand bigotry.

 

[bigt61]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
As I mentioned in your other thread, unless you like spending money go with the cheaper and somewhat lighter PP 5W-20 instead.


I think the PP 5W-20 and 0W-20 are priced the same at Walmart down here south of the border.

Greg, it sounds like your short trips are multiple times daily, like a courier for instance. That is much easier on the oil than starting it up cold in the morning, driving 1 mile to work, and then starting cold again in the evening for the 1 mile drive home. If your car is staying relatively warm all day, that's not as tough as you think. I'm sure you could at least double your OCI to 6,000 miles, no sweat. Even for dino, that would be a walk in the park.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Fair enough, but don't make the very common mistake on BITOG of judging an oil by it's base stocks alone or one metric, least of all NOACK. In your application, PP 0W-20 is not a better lubricant than PP 5W-20.

 

[gregk24]

Originally Posted By: bigt61
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
As I mentioned in your other thread, unless you like spending money go with the cheaper and somewhat lighter PP 5W-20 instead.


I think the PP 5W-20 and 0W-20 are priced the same at Walmart down here south of the border.

Greg, it sounds like your short trips are multiple times daily, like a courier for instance. That is much easier on the oil than starting it up cold in the morning, driving 1 mile to work, and then starting cold again in the evening for the 1 mile drive home. If your car is staying relatively warm all day, that's not as tough as you think. I'm sure you could at least double your OCI to 6,000 miles, no sweat. Even for dino, that would be a walk in the park.
The oil never gets "warm" at all though. 1 miles is hardly enough to warm up. Im probably going to use PP 0w20 year round (if the car likes it) and will change every 3-5k miles.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: gregk24
... Im probably going to use PP 0w20 year round (if the car likes it) ....


You mean if you like it; "like" is an emotion that a car is not capable of. Now, I understand the context of what you're trying to say; you're referring to a positive response to the use of the PP. I get that.

But this thread is really about one thing, even past your UOA ... You are a synthetic junkie, pure and simple. You are applying the correct verb to the wrong entity. The car does not have emotions, but you do. You like using premium products, regardless of the ROI (or lack thereof). Fine. Got for it. But there is no justification of any manner of reason that supports your decision here; this is PURELY how you "feel". The data conclusively shows otherwise. Your results are "average" in that they are attainable by any manner of lube; well within statistical "normalcy".


The car will run well on a lube that is of correct grade and API certified, therefore it will "like" just about anything.

 

[SatinSilver]

dnewton,

Can you close this thread? It's just wasting space and bandwidth on here.

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: satinsilver
dnewton,

Can you close this thread? It's just wasting space and bandwidth on here.

Why, because people keep trying to belittle and bully the OP into doing somethings he's already said he isn't going to do?

 

[dnewton3]

We don't lock threads unless site rules are violated. This has been a civil debate where no names are hurled, no taunts are tossed, no RSP exists, etc. There is no reason to lock or quarantine this thread.

 

[ckmarsh]

I do feel it's unfortunate that people receive condensending statements just because they choose to use whatever oil like. No one should be told to use synthetic or told not to use synthetic. There's much more important things than the brand of oil a person uses, or how often they change it. I would never post a used oil analysis here due to the controlling and condensending nature of the replies that I would receive.

 

[Garak]

No one is being told what to do. There are suggestions made, and in just about every thread, and the suggestions are well intentioned. And do recall that people can get it from both sides. Some of us consider the use of PU for 3,000 miles in a vehicle that doesn't have demanding specifications or conditions to be a little excessive. Others consider my long term use of conventional in things like my old Audi 200 Turbo or my G as ill advised.

We're all going to hear suggestions we don't like, not just here, but in life in general. I have no problem with someone running a UOA on PU used for 3,000 miles. They can run the oil as short as they like and buy as many UOAs as they like. But, the point of a UOA is to decide whether the lubricant is suitable for continued use, not to frame on a wall because it's nice to look at numbers for a low mileage UOA on a premium synthetic.