5W-20 in 5W-30 applications

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: KW
Going from 15W40 to 5W30 caused rod bearings to spin in my alky motor.


Yes, but they will dismiss it as a "race engine" since it doesn't follow the laws of physics like street engines do. Even my GN which uses mostly stock parts with stockish clearances doesn't count because it makes a few more hp than stock.

So, you running a few inches more W.C. on the boost? Adding a dozen ponies or so?? How many RWH did the thing come stock with. How many does it have now?

Really, under your standards, 5w30 is prohibitive for use by anyone since it can produce more wear in antiquated engines of high output over a 40 weight..50 weight.

How many people drive cars with more than 60hp/liter under current hp measuring methods (recall SAE "net"? - my 78 454 had something like 230hp ..my 1975 350 something like 168hp)??

The physics doesn't change ..but the amount you assign value to some aspects of it shrinks or swells a bit depending on a few things ..like power density.

All with a really big smile on my face, you really can't see outside of the MAX POWER bubble.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: KW
Going from 15W40 to 5W30 caused rod bearings to spin in my alky motor.


Yes, but they will dismiss it as a "race engine" since it doesn't follow the laws of physics like street engines do. Even my GN which uses mostly stock parts with stockish clearances doesn't count because it makes a few more hp than stock.

So, you running a few inches more W.C. on the boost? Adding a dozen ponies or so?? How many RWH did the thing come stock with. How many does it have now?

Really, under your standards, 5w30 is prohibitive for use by anyone since it can produce more wear in antiquated engines of high output over a 40 weight..50 weight.

How many people drive cars with more than 60hp/liter under current hp measuring methods (recall SAE "net"? - my 78 454 had something like 230hp ..my 1975 350 something like 168hp)??

The physics doesn't change ..but the amount you assign value to some aspects of it shrinks or swells a bit depending on a few things ..like power density.

All with a really big smile on my face, you really can't see outside of the MAX POWER bubble.

I'm arguing like the thin oil guys. Twist and manipulate the truth to win the argument at hand at all costs. Ignore any pertenant facts. Don't state the full story and most definately don't look at the big picture. So, my stock bottom GN makes a few more hp than stock.

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Tim H.
Just for sake of argument, I think most manufacturers consider 150K a 'lifetime' for an engine (if any longer, they wouldn't be in business, as no one would need to buy a new car). Taking that into account, IF, and I say IF, a 20w oil caused more wear than a 30w, I don't think it would be more than negligible over that lifetime of an engine. I think IF the 20W's did cause more wear, the manufacturers would consider that acceptable, as the engine would still have provided the maximum designed life, anything over 150K would be just icing on the cake so to speak.


In which case we would still want an oil that protects better.


yes, WE would, but the thousands of other car owners (that do not have the sickness we have here) would not know the difference...

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: KW
Going from 15W40 to 5W30 caused rod bearings to spin in my alky motor.


Yes, but they will dismiss it as a "race engine" since it doesn't follow the laws of physics like street engines do. Even my GN which uses mostly stock parts with stockish clearances doesn't count because it makes a few more hp than stock.

So, you running a few inches more W.C. on the boost? Adding a dozen ponies or so?? How many RWH did the thing come stock with. How many does it have now?

Really, under your standards, 5w30 is prohibitive for use by anyone since it can produce more wear in antiquated engines of high output over a 40 weight..50 weight.

How many people drive cars with more than 60hp/liter under current hp measuring methods (recall SAE "net"? - my 78 454 had something like 230hp ..my 1975 350 something like 168hp)??

The physics doesn't change ..but the amount you assign value to some aspects of it shrinks or swells a bit depending on a few things ..like power density.

All with a really big smile on my face, you really can't see outside of the MAX POWER bubble.

I'm arguing like the thin oil guys. Twist and manipulate the truth to win the argument at hand at all costs. Ignore any pertenant facts. Don't state the full story and most definately don't look at the big picture. So, my stock bottom GN makes a few more hp than stock.


Fair enough. Sauce for the goose. It works for the gander

 

[MarkC]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Read it. Particularly liked the "I cannot go into details here" part. The only dyno data I saw didn't seem to point to anything bad going on unless I missed something. I assume you read this:
"The engine tear down report includes:
Good cylinder crosshatch honing retention.
No issues with main and connecting rod bearings.
Excellent sludge and varnish control.
Excellent engine wear protection, well within expected tolerances.
Overall the engines were in excellent shape. (Continued service was possible despite worst case conditions)."

But seemed to ignore it?


That's all you got from it?!?!?......

We will start with the guy behind it all:
"I'm assuming you're not referring to my comments, or don't know my background? Are you aware that I spent about 10 years doing engine development with Ford Motor Company, including being the systems engineer on the 2003 Aviator and 2005 Mustang V8s?"

Now this:
"I think you'll understand that I can go into details here. And understand that I'm not saying that 5W-20 is not going to instantly do damage. But suffice it to say I've seen and been involved in a LOT of development on these motors, and my personal opinion is that I would never run 5W-20 in a modular motor. Regarding your "spec oil" comment, you need to look at what else governs this recommendation."

And this:
"Yes. I would not run 5W-20 in ANY stock mod motor. This is especially true in 4v motors, but applies to all of them in one form or another."

This:
"Because I've seen the dyno testing. I've probably looked at several hundred engines disassembled and spread out on inspection tables. And I've been involved in testing to resolve issues where varying the oil viscosity was part of the test DOE. Trading a very small FE improvement in exchange for a large durability safety margin is not something I'm interested in doing."

What would FORD ENGINEER recommend?:
"My *PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION* would be to run a good fresh synthetic in the 5w30 to 10W-40 range. And keep an eye on oil temps and oil pressure variations. The oil viscosity might slightly change the VCT's transient behaviors, but I wouldn't expect significant issues. I admit that I've never tested or seen testing relating to oils thicker than 10W-40, so I can't comment on that."

Since this is spelled out very plainly, I expect his credibility to be attacked first. We always say "what would the engineers recommend", well here you have it.



Dang, you beat me to it.

What I saw was one guy claiming to be something and to have seen something, with nothing to document his claims, which may or may not be true.
In the quote about the taxi studies, I saw actual quotes about engine wear observed which said something that would seem to contradict these claims. Do you have any comment about that?
I'd just like to see evidence to the contrary. I don't care either way, at least from a standpoint of wanting to be right. I just want to see hard data before I wander from the owner's manual.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: MarkC
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Read it. Particularly liked the "I cannot go into details here" part. The only dyno data I saw didn't seem to point to anything bad going on unless I missed something. I assume you read this:
"The engine tear down report includes:
Good cylinder crosshatch honing retention.
No issues with main and connecting rod bearings.
Excellent sludge and varnish control.
Excellent engine wear protection, well within expected tolerances.
Overall the engines were in excellent shape. (Continued service was possible despite worst case conditions)."

But seemed to ignore it?


That's all you got from it?!?!?......

We will start with the guy behind it all:
"I'm assuming you're not referring to my comments, or don't know my background? Are you aware that I spent about 10 years doing engine development with Ford Motor Company, including being the systems engineer on the 2003 Aviator and 2005 Mustang V8s?"

Now this:
"I think you'll understand that I can go into details here. And understand that I'm not saying that 5W-20 is not going to instantly do damage. But suffice it to say I've seen and been involved in a LOT of development on these motors, and my personal opinion is that I would never run 5W-20 in a modular motor. Regarding your "spec oil" comment, you need to look at what else governs this recommendation."

And this:
"Yes. I would not run 5W-20 in ANY stock mod motor. This is especially true in 4v motors, but applies to all of them in one form or another."

This:
"Because I've seen the dyno testing. I've probably looked at several hundred engines disassembled and spread out on inspection tables. And I've been involved in testing to resolve issues where varying the oil viscosity was part of the test DOE. Trading a very small FE improvement in exchange for a large durability safety margin is not something I'm interested in doing."

What would FORD ENGINEER recommend?:
"My *PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION* would be to run a good fresh synthetic in the 5w30 to 10W-40 range. And keep an eye on oil temps and oil pressure variations. The oil viscosity might slightly change the VCT's transient behaviors, but I wouldn't expect significant issues. I admit that I've never tested or seen testing relating to oils thicker than 10W-40, so I can't comment on that."

Since this is spelled out very plainly, I expect his credibility to be attacked first. We always say "what would the engineers recommend", well here you have it.



Dang, you beat me to it.

What I saw was one guy claiming to be something and to have seen something, with nothing to document his claims, which may or may not be true.
In the quote about the taxi studies, I saw actual quotes about engine wear observed which said something that would seem to contradict these claims. Do you have any comment about that?
I'd just like to see evidence to the contrary. I don't care either way, at least from a standpoint of wanting to be right. I just want to see hard data before I wander from the owner's manual.


The taxi study didn't compare 20 weights to 30 weights, it compared 20 weights to 20 weights. Not exactly relevant.

Scott Whitehead is not an "internet figure", he is a former OEM engineer who now works for NASCAR, IIRC.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: MarkC
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Originally Posted By: MarkC
Read it. Particularly liked the "I cannot go into details here" part. The only dyno data I saw didn't seem to point to anything bad going on unless I missed something. I assume you read this:
"The engine tear down report includes:
Good cylinder crosshatch honing retention.
No issues with main and connecting rod bearings.
Excellent sludge and varnish control.
Excellent engine wear protection, well within expected tolerances.
Overall the engines were in excellent shape. (Continued service was possible despite worst case conditions)."

But seemed to ignore it?


That's all you got from it?!?!?......

We will start with the guy behind it all:
"I'm assuming you're not referring to my comments, or don't know my background? Are you aware that I spent about 10 years doing engine development with Ford Motor Company, including being the systems engineer on the 2003 Aviator and 2005 Mustang V8s?"

Now this:
"I think you'll understand that I can go into details here. And understand that I'm not saying that 5W-20 is not going to instantly do damage. But suffice it to say I've seen and been involved in a LOT of development on these motors, and my personal opinion is that I would never run 5W-20 in a modular motor. Regarding your "spec oil" comment, you need to look at what else governs this recommendation."

And this:
"Yes. I would not run 5W-20 in ANY stock mod motor. This is especially true in 4v motors, but applies to all of them in one form or another."

This:
"Because I've seen the dyno testing. I've probably looked at several hundred engines disassembled and spread out on inspection tables. And I've been involved in testing to resolve issues where varying the oil viscosity was part of the test DOE. Trading a very small FE improvement in exchange for a large durability safety margin is not something I'm interested in doing."

What would FORD ENGINEER recommend?:
"My *PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION* would be to run a good fresh synthetic in the 5w30 to 10W-40 range. And keep an eye on oil temps and oil pressure variations. The oil viscosity might slightly change the VCT's transient behaviors, but I wouldn't expect significant issues. I admit that I've never tested or seen testing relating to oils thicker than 10W-40, so I can't comment on that."

Since this is spelled out very plainly, I expect his credibility to be attacked first. We always say "what would the engineers recommend", well here you have it.



Dang, you beat me to it.

What I saw was one guy claiming to be something and to have seen something, with nothing to document his claims, which may or may not be true.
In the quote about the taxi studies, I saw actual quotes about engine wear observed which said something that would seem to contradict these claims. Do you have any comment about that?
I'd just like to see evidence to the contrary. I don't care either way, at least from a standpoint of wanting to be right. I just want to see hard data before I wander from the owner's manual.


I understand your being cautious in deviating from the manual. Even though I knew it was ok, it was a little unnerving at first.

Ben99GT already summed it up.

The guy in the quotes is one of the big dogs. Do you believe a paper you see on the internet usually sponsored by an oil company or manufacturer, or do you believe a factory engineer, durability tester, and someone who works on one of the nascar teams?

Sure, there are no hardcore numbers. But this guy offers his experience as an OEM durability tester with teardowns, not used oil analysis of 100s of engines. What more can you ask for? If someone like this says not to run a 20wt in a modular, I'm going to listen to him. This is one rare case where if he said a 20wt is perfectly fine, I would believe him too.

 

[MarkC]

A. This "The engine tear down report includes:
Good cylinder crosshatch honing retention.
No issues with main and connecting rod bearings.
Excellent sludge and varnish control.
Excellent engine wear protection, well within expected tolerances.
Overall the engines were in excellent shape. (Continued service was possible despite worst case conditions)."
Doesn't matter comparing to another weight, it just states that the engines were in excellent shape.
B. I don't have a Ford, modular engine or not, thanks. I run 10W30 in my old Cherokee since that's what my manual said, (and it mysteriously hasn't broken down due to the inadequacies of SM oils, but that's another thread), and I use 5W20 in my Patriot, because that's what the manual says, and for other reasons "that I cannot go into here". Until I see some real data that shows it will cause more engine wear than 5W30, I'll probably stick with it.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Until I see some real data that shows it will cause more engine wear than 5W30, I'll probably stick with it.


I'm sure that data exists. It's probably been observed and documented with hundreds of engines (maybe not hundreds of YOUR engine) in some MOPAR engine testing facility. Probably a good number of them were taken from cold start to WOT and run for some incredible number of hours and then torn down. I'll bet that those with 5w-20 showed more wear than those with higher viscosity. Would one be sensible in concluding that 5w-20 resulted in abnormal wear over 5w30 outside of those conditions that clearly evidenced it? I don't think one could make such a conclusion without also making concessions (terms and conditions apply -professional engine destroyer on a closed course - do not attempt this at home).

 

[Mr_Incredible]

More wear seen with a thinner oil in engines likely beaten like a rented mule...imagine that.

I, too, wonder what happens in an engine that is treated normally. I'll find out in 2000 more miles and tell you if there's any difference between 5w30 and 5w-20 in my old CRX.

 

[demarpaint]

I learned a long time ago testing can sometimes be taylored to get the desired results. Just like seeking information to support an argument, and tossing aside info that doesn't support the case. These discussions will never end.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
I'll find out in 2000 more miles and tell you if there's any difference between 5w30 and 5w-20 in my old CRX.


How so? And how can one short OCI represent a cumulative difference over 150,000+ miles?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
I'll find out in 2000 more miles and tell you if there's any difference between 5w30 and 5w-20 in my old CRX.


How so? And how can one short OCI represent a cumulative difference over 150,000+ miles?


Why, he'll get a used oil analysis of course! They tell you EVERYTHING! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
I'll find out in 2000 more miles and tell you if there's any difference between 5w30 and 5w-20 in my old CRX.


How so? And how can one short OCI represent a cumulative difference over 150,000+ miles?


Why, he'll get a used oil analysis of course! They tell you EVERYTHING! LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sad sad sad. I think I'm going to take a break from this site. It's no longer about information sharing, it's about people with agendas who know nothing about engines pushing their agenda. People who have never been inside of an engine pushing 20wts on all the newbs who ask for advice regardless of the type of service that's expected or climate. Sadly, many of the knowlegable members have left and this is what we're left with.

20wt is the answer for everything and used oil analysis are better than teardowns.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I learned a long time ago testing can sometimes be taylored to get the desired results. Just like seeking information to support an argument, and tossing aside info that doesn't support the case. These discussions will never end.


This is quite common. The key to any argument or debate is to concede to the obvious and weight the + & - of the issue from both sides. You then show what makes you go one way or the other.

There is no "one answer" for this.

 

[Mr_Incredible]

It'll be better, or it'll be worse. Either way, it will tell me something.

It is what it is...like it or don't...whatever. I couldn't care less if it doesn't meet with someone else's approval for rigorous, extended testing. It isn't intended to be.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
It'll be better, or it'll be worse. Either way, it will tell me something.

It is what it is...like it or don't...whatever. I couldn't care less if it doesn't meet with someone else's approval for rigorous, extended testing. It isn't intended to be.


What will be better or worse?

You might as well pick your lucky number and whatever oil happens to hit that number in iron or whatever metal you choose, pick that one.

You're saying an engineer that's done hundreds of tests with 5w-20 and 5w30 during OEM durability testing has less credibility than a worthless UOA. It makes no sense.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

I agree. There is no real difference between different SAE viscosities within the Energy Conserving grade. I have run higher and lower visocisities from spec within the Energy Conserving grade and this is perfectly acceptable.
If your car is specced for a European oil then it wouldn't be.

 

[Mr_Incredible]

Originally Posted By: BuickGN
What will be better or worse?

I can't believe that came out of your keyboard.


Originally Posted By: BuickGN
You're saying an engineer that's done hundreds of tests with 5w-20 and 5w30 during OEM durability testing has less credibility than a worthless used oil analysis. It makes no sense.

I'm not saying that at all. But my guess those engines were beat on severely and for a long time. Sure, it'll bring out any long term differences in the oils on abused engines. This engineer did not provide specifics so anything past his general statement is guessing or projecting on somebody else's part. But that's not what I'm interested in knowing. I want to know about my engine at my usage profile.

What is anyone here but an armchair quarterback, cheering for or railing against something somebody brought up? Skepticism abounds, as does a certain amount of pomposity and fluffing of feathers. Occasionally, good information is brought up and passed around. More than occasionally sometimes, others...not.

A used oil analysis is useful to some extent or they wouldn't be such a big part of the forum. They held up as shining examples and also claimed to show absolutely nothing at all, depending on the agenda of the poster. Mine would be only one, and only on my engine, and only from one 3k mile oil change to another. A very small sampling. Still, it will be useful to me.

If the numbers are wildly different, one way or the other, it might mean that my motor might not like 20w or likes it better than the last 30w I used. Maybe it won't like it. Maybe I'll find chunks in the 20w. Maybe I won't. But it's something I want to know and maybe somebody else would find it interesting.

We can't all personally do the same kind of rigorous and extended (and expensive) tests that are the benchmark of the industries. We do what we can.

 

[BuickGN]

Originally Posted By: Mr_Incredible
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
What will be better or worse?

I can't believe that came out of your keyboard.


Originally Posted By: BuickGN
You're saying an engineer that's done hundreds of tests with 5w-20 and 5w30 during OEM durability testing has less credibility than a worthless used oil analysis. It makes no sense.

I'm not saying that at all. But my guess those engines were beat on severely and for a long time. Sure, it'll bring out any long term differences in the oils on abused engines. This engineer did not provide specifics so anything past his general statement is guessing or projecting on somebody else's part. But that's not what I'm interested in knowing. I want to know about my engine at my usage profile.

What is anyone here but an armchair quarterback, cheering for or railing against something somebody brought up? Skepticism abounds, as does a certain amount of pomposity and fluffing of feathers. Occasionally, good information is brought up and passed around. More than occasionally sometimes, others...not.

A used oil analysis is useful to some extent or they wouldn't be such a big part of the forum. They held up as shining examples and also claimed to show absolutely nothing at all, depending on the agenda of the poster. Mine would be only one, and only on my engine, and only from one 3k mile oil change to another. A very small sampling. Still, it will be useful to me.

If the numbers are wildly different, one way or the other, it might mean that my motor might not like 20w or likes it better than the last 30w I used. Maybe it won't like it. Maybe I'll find chunks in the 20w. Maybe I won't. But it's something I want to know and maybe somebody else would find it interesting.

We can't all personally do the same kind of rigorous and extended (and expensive) tests that are the benchmark of the industries. We do what we can.


A lot worse has come out of my keyboard lol.

You won't find me showing off a used oil analysis even if it goes in favor of whatever I'm using.

Even a good variance in wear metals from one oil to another over one OCI means absolutely nothing even if there's a 400% change.

I'm a little more than an armchair quarterback. I watched as two engines wore out, one in less than 15,000 miles with sparkly oil with the used oil analysis picking up nothing.

What I don't get here is how you guy seem to think that durability testing is invalid or somehow doesn't apply to a normally driven car. If it holds up better in harsh conditions, it will trickle down to normal use. It's not like the engine only wears when you beat on it but ceases wearing when you drive it nice.