5w-20 Unique Oil Bottle Warning

[ekpolk]

OK, once again, I do not believe that 5w-20 is the liquid anti-Christ, but I still have my reservations about just how thin we can go. Things like the warning pictured below on the back of a Havoline bottle do nothing to give me a warm fuzzy about the product, especially since none of the other Havoline grades have such a statement on their bottles. This one is similar to one I saw on another bottle a couple months ago at a tire store (couldn't get there to track that one down, but I did find this at a nearby Autozone). I did NOT see a similar statement on the other brands present. Now, I know that posting this is probably going to be like tossing a Molotov coctail into the discussion group, but what do you all think it means? Why only on 5w-20???

 

[Gary Allan]

Call the number at the bottom there and get their take on it.

I think it is simply a CYA statement. The same type of thing that M1 puts on their bottles (turbo and diesel owners ....warranty yada stuff). That is, they don't want to have to back the product for its "merchantability" for any "non-specified" use. They simply say that "it is what it is".

Here's what I downloaded from the website:

* SAE 5W-20 provides optimum fuel economy and durability performance. It is specifically designed to meet the demanding requirements of newer Ford and Honda vehicles that specify 5W-20 oil.
* SAE 5W-30 is recommended for use at very low temperatures involving cold starting, and for high fuel economy. The majority of auto manufacturers recommend SAE 5W-30 for most of their late model North American vehicles, under all weather conditions.
* SAE 10W-30 is recommended for many older vehicles and a few late model cars and trucks, often those with larger 6-cylinder and V-8 and/or high performance engines. SAE 10W-30 provides improved fuel economy relative to heavier viscosity grades.
* SAE 10W-40 is still a very popular viscosity grade in warmer climates, though it is not recommended by most manufacturers for their late model North American vehicles. It is often recommended for older model cars that see regular high temperature operation.
* SAE 20W-50 is recommended primarily for older engines for use in high temperature and heavy duty operations such as towing heavy trailers at highway speeds or up inclines for long periods of time. It is also recommended for high performance engines used in racing and rallying.

[ April 25, 2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[jthorner]

It seems like a very reasonable statement and in fact would make sense on almost every container of motor oil. Any time a person uses something other than what the OE mfg. recommends they should be aware that they are on their own legally should that choice cause any problems.

John

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jthorner:
It seems like a very reasonable statement and in fact would make sense on almost every container of motor oil. Any time a person uses something other than what the OE mfg. recommends they should be aware that they are on their own legally should that choice cause any problems.

John

---

I agree. It just seems glaringly inconsistent that the statement, which without doubt is equally appicable to ANY grade of oil, appears ONLY on the 5w-20 bottle. At a minimum, singling out this one grade, which already happens to be fighting some resistance to acceptance, is going to fire up the thick oil diehards. Maybe they should put the warning on all grades if they are 100% confident in the 5w-20 product. . .

 

[G-MAN]

This same sort of "disclaimer" appeared on the early bottles of 5w30 back in the 80s when Detroit was making the switch to that grade.

 

[edhackett]

Here's the "warning" on Castrol GTX 5W-20:

FOR USE ONLY WHERE SAE 5W-20 IS SPECIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER [emphasis theirs]

Ed

 

[jthorner]

I suspect that there are engines and operating conditions in which 5W-20 would be a horrible choice. It is a very thin oil and even though I'm running it in my '03 Honda I'm sure not about to put it in my '96 Volvo which specs 15W-40 as it's preferred oil.

John

 

[MNgopher]

Simply a CYA statment put on a product with the advice of company lawyers. As pointed out, simialar warnigns have been placed on 5w30 grades when they were a relatively new item to the general market.

 

[TC]

Actually, this is not an uncommon notice for 5w-20 oils. Citgo and Mobil also have such warnings in their oil spec sheets, and I'm sure at least a few other firms do as well. If I'm correct, this weight has been factory approved only for certain Ford, Mazda, and Honda vehicles. Rather than meaning "Warning: This oil sucks," the notice simply means "Notice: Chances are this weight has not been factory-approved for your engine, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE STILL UNDER WARRANTY."

For those who insist that, "No, it simply means the oil sucks," I'd suggest to stop chanting "The world is flat" and please stop posting, but not before reading all the 5w-20 UOAs on this board showing less than 10 ppm iron and lead wear.

 

[labman]

Maybe they need to put the same thing on their 20W-50 bottles.

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:
Maybe they need to put the same thing on their 20W-50 bottles.

---

I agree. A 20w50 is usually a whole lot thicker than a 10w40. Redline has a warning on their website that their 20w50 is "Not recommended for street use in production engines that see sustained oil temperatures below 225°F ..."

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TC:
Actually, this is not an uncommon notice for 5w-20 oils. Citgo and Mobil also have such warnings in their oil spec sheets, and I'm sure at least a few other firms do as well. If I'm correct, this weight has been factory approved only for certain Ford, Mazda, and Honda vehicles. Rather than meaning "Warning: This oil sucks," the notice simply means "Notice: Chances are this weight has not been factory-approved for your engine, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE STILL UNDER WARRANTY."

For those who insist that, "No, it simply means the oil sucks," I'd suggest to stop chanting "The world is flat" and please stop posting, but not before reading all the 5w-20 UOAs on this board showing less than 10 ppm iron and lead wear.

---

1) TC, with all due respect, telling those with whom you disagree to shut up and go away isn't a constructive way to deal with conflict. The Soviets tried that for about seven decades, and it never did quite work. I imagine it would make you feel better if everyone agreed with you, but there wouldn't be much left to discuss. . .

2) Neither I nor anyone else who has responded in this thread has said that such warnings mean that 5w-20 "sucks". But they do mean something, since they obviously didn't get there by accident. CYA seems to be the consensus, but if it is, I don't think it's a very good way to do it. I've drafted plenty of provisions meant to "cover" a client, and this strategy is a bad one, IMPO. The real problem (putting the wrong vis grade in the wrong engine) can occur with any oil and any engine, not just by putting 5w-20 in a non-spec engine. I think that the narrow and inconsistent treatment of a broad and consistent problem just opens the door to suggestions that 5w-20 has some lurking, inherent, weakness.

3) Your use of UOAs highlights the problem of overgeneralizing from individual datapoints. The problem is this: as seductive as a good UOA for one, or a relatively small group of cars may be, you can't prove what that same car (or group) would have done had it been fed a different vis grade. Perhaps the same car at the same time on 10w-30 would have generated half the wear debris as it did with 5w-20. Or maybe it would have generated double. We just can't say. This is why statistically significant studies, rigidly controlled, are needed before anyone can say whether ANY type of oil, including 5w-20 "sucks," or is manna from heaven.

 

[ekpolk]

Oh yeah, I would hasten to add that I'm no disciple of thick oil. My Toyota V-6 calls for 5w-30 primary and allows 10w-30, and those are the grades I use (with the 10w-30 reserved for the hottest part of the Southern summer). It's not like either of these look like molasses next to a 5w-20.

 

[mikemc]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:
Maybe they need to put the same thing on their 20W-50 bottles.

---

Agreed. Our '03 Cavalier owners' manual states that 10w40 or 20w50 are not to be used and doing so may void warranty. I think this disclaimer is to protect them from a potential bonehead that may dump the oil in a diesel.

 

[metroplex]

quote:

---

* SAE 5W-20 provides optimum fuel economy and durability performance. It is specifically designed to meet the demanding requirements of newer Ford and Honda vehicles that specify 5W-20 oil.

---

5W-20 and demanding requirements do not belong in the same sentence! BWAHAHAHA

 

[metroplex]

quote:

---

For those who insist that, "No, it simply means the oil sucks," I'd suggest to stop chanting "The world is flat" and please stop posting, but not before reading all the 5w-20 UOAs on this board showing less than 10 ppm iron and lead wear

---

That's decent for a synthetic blend. So what's your point? Are there any UOAs for 5W-30 synth blends and Group III synthetics that you can compare it with? Don't go comparing 5W-20 to a dino 5W-30, apples to oranges.

 

[crossbow]

My favorite UOA to post.

0w-20 mobil1 supersyn vs 5w-30 mobil1 supersyn.

Mazda 6s (Duratec 3.0 V6) same driving conditions. Oil before 1st 5w-30 UOA was changed twice.

 

[n8wvi]

I don't think the above comparison is entirely fair. My soob wasn't fully broken in 'til > 20K miles.

Dave

 

[Dr. T]

Let's look at it objectively...

5-20's are the thinnest OTC multi-grade oil available. Before you guys are persuaded by UOA's...nobody will be seeing Ferrari, Porsche, BWM or Corvette's spec. out a 5-20 anytime soon. Nor will major truck fleets use this oil grade anytime soon either.

Hence, the warning (as it is written) is for those willing to jump in and put this oil in a car that doesn't spec. this grade to begin with eg. VW...and then has engine problems as a result that could cause manufacturer declining the warranty coverage or irate customer. In other words, only use in manuf. spec'd engines ensured by the manuf. that they will last up until the warranty period ends.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crossbow:
My favorite UOA to post.

---

Why? Statistically, this is meaningless. There are more than 100,000 newer Hondas and Fords running around with 5w-20 in them. You can't make a conclusion about all of them based upon a sample of two cars. Right off the bat, I can think of several variables other than oil quality that may have a bearing (sorry...) on the results: mileage on engine (significantly different), seasonal temp differences (Oct vs. Jan, so driving conditions are NOT the same), individual batch quality variations, individual and type oil filter used, what's in the "remain behind" oil (my Toyota V-6 calls for 5.0 qts w/ oil+filter change, but after overhaul manual says 5.8 qts, so 0.8 remains behind with every routine change; how much for a Duratec?), and so forth.

If you see a six-foot tall, brown haired, well dressed man walk out of a large building, would you immediately say that the hundreds or thousands of other people inside are all six-foot, brown haired, well dressed men also? Of course not. You'd need to see everyone (impractical) or see the results of a large, truly random sampling before you could say for sure who's inside.

A final question as yet unanswered: both Ford and Honda MUST have done some durability research before making the change to 5w-20. Yet all we seem to hear about is fuel economy. Where are the results of those durability studies? If they were favorable, you'd think they would be publicising them heavily. But they're not.

[ April 26, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]