5W20 Going on 10 years, any proof?

Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
14,780
Location
The Old North State
Where it's been manufacturer recommended by Honda and Ford; Is there any scientific data proving that 5w20 has not performed as well as or better than using a 5w30 would have over the same time frame? Is there any scientific proof that engine wear on these vehicles has increased in comparison to 5w30 and that the engine life of the vehicles using 5w20 shortened? Is there any scientific data to prove that the vehicles (Honda and Ford) in use over this time span have failed at a greater rate than engines using a heavier weight? I'm not referring to anecdotal rhetoric or viscosity theory. I'm am referring to scientific studies proving that 5w20 has not performed as well or better as say 5w30 or 10w30 over the same period. In other words, any empirical evidence that I should not continue to follow either Honda or Ford's (now others) 5W20 recommendation.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
34,645
Location
NJ
Not that I'm aware of. Going on 10 years and engines are lasting LONGER, then ever before.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
1,303
Location
Virginia
One would think that if the engines are designed for the slightly more modest oil film thickness then there shouldn't be any change in engine longevity.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
82
Location
Fl,USA
I used 5w20 in my Honda Accord Coupe for the last 9 years and not a single issue.I believe I heard that the majority of 2010 Toyota's will come factory filled with 0W20. How low can they go?
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
36,265
Location
NY
LOL- another angle to a thick vs thin debate. I have no proof to offer other than friends owning Fords and Hondas for close to 10 years using 5W20 w/ZERO problems.
 
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
6,614
Location
southeast US
 Originally Posted By: sayjac
Where it's been manufacturer recommended by Honda and Ford; Is there any scientific data proving that 5w20 has not performed as well as or better than using a 5w30 would have over the same time frame? Is there any scientific proof that engine wear on these vehicles has increased in comparison to 5w30 and that the engine life of the vehicles using 5w20 shortened? Is there any scientific data to prove that the vehicles (Honda and Ford) in use over this time span have failed at a greater rate than engines using a heavier weight? I'm not referring to anecdotal rhetoric or viscosity theory. I'm am referring to scientific studies proving that 5w20 has not performed as well or better as say 5w30 or 10w30 over the same period. In other words, any empirical evidence that I should not continue to follow either Honda or Ford's (now others) 5W20 recommendation.
Don't be silly, there is little difference in viscosity between available 5W30 and 5W20 oils (except for GC or HM oils). On the other hand there was a study showing increased wear in taxi service in Las Vegas with 5W20. I posted that in the thread that was locked so, I'm not going to do it again.
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
25,051
Location
ON, Canada eh?
 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
LOL- another angle to a thick vs thin debate. I have no proof to offer other than friends owning Fords and Hondas for close to 10 years using 5W20 w/ZERO problems.
Same here... Dad was just given a Ford Windstar by our neighbour and it has 300K KM (180K Miles) on it now and it has used 5w20 Motorcraft for 276K KM (172K miles)with 10K KM (6K mile OCI's) and it doesn't burn or leak any oil and passed our local emission test with flying colours.
 
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
610
Location
Afghanistan
This interesting article is post by Dr AEHaas from BITOG. Evaluation of SAE 0W20 and 5W20 GF-4 Prototype Formulations in Severe Taxi Fleet Service, Amanda Damen, Petro-Canada, Nigel Broom and Rolfe Hartley, Infineum USA LP, and Michael Riley, Ford Motor Co. My review: The Las Vegas taxi service is considered the most severe for testing high temperature fluids. Four taxis were run with 0W20 and 4 with 5W-20 test oils for 100,000 miles each with a test oil having only 0.05% phosphorus. This is to test the newer GF-5 pending specification. All engines were then broken down and tested for wear. Oil testing was done at 5k and at 10k miles. Each oil was specified to run only 3k miles by Ford under these “severe” conditions but were purposefully run to 10k miles to test the worst case conditions. They consumed an average of 3 quarts of oil over the 10k runs. They stated that the formulation of 20 grade oils required an evolutionary improvement in base stock properties. (This may account for the occasional superior UOA seen over the basic 30 grade oils in similar applications). Both test oils were made entirely of mineral base stocks. The 0W20 was 83.5% base oil and 6.2% viscosity modifier. The 5W-20 was 83.8% and 5.9% respectively. Base oil viscosities were 4.24 and 4.52 at 100 C and the final viscosities were 8.7 and 8.9 respectively. They stated that retail 0W20 oils are generally formulated with synthetic base stocks. Note the lesser percentage of VII used compared to 10 or 20 years ago. This may account for the minimal shear thinning seen in todays oils. The taxis used were 2001 Ford Windstar 3.8L V6 vehicles with an overhead valve pushrod cam-in-block valvetrain. Field results were as follows: There were no significant differences in wear metals between the two oils. All were less than expected. The viscosities were not tested until 5k and averaged 10 cS, up from 9 at the start. By 10k miles the viscosities were up to 12. HTHS started at 2.6 and rose to 3.1 and 3.4 at 5 and 10k. Low temperature characteristics showed that the 0W became a 5W early on and both became a 10W by the 10k limit of each oil run. They stated that oxidation was not adversely effected by the lowered ZDDP. Oil consumption was only 1 quart for the entire 10k interval in 2 cars with a newer, modified crankcase ventilation system. There was one car with 0W20 and one with 5W20 that had this trend. (This shows the importance of the system to oil consumption. It is not thin oil passing by the valve guides nor rings but rather the type of ventilation system that causes increased oil consumption here). The 0W20 had 0.2 more MPG, significant at the p-value of 0.14. 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). They concluded that the oils provided excellent durability, oxidative and viscosity control despite lowered ZDDP in severe, high temperature conditions. The only significant difference was that the 0W20 gave slightly better fuel economy. They admit that consumers have concerns over 0W or “thin” oils in general. However, they stated that the “Industry” generally agreed that low temperature performance benefits motor oil performance. aehaas
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
2,053
Location
Detroit, MI
So does this mean that everyone who has been cautious about running 5w20 in their car should just run it and forget about the 30weights?
 
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
6,614
Location
southeast US
 Originally Posted By: Captain_Klink
This interesting article is post by Dr AEHaas from BITOG. Evaluation of SAE 0W20 and 5W20 GF-4 Prototype Formulations in Severe Taxi Fleet Service, Amanda Damen, Petro-Canada, Nigel Broom and Rolfe Hartley, Infineum USA LP, and Michael Riley, Ford Motor Co. My review: The Las Vegas taxi service is considered the most severe for testing high temperature fluids. Four taxis were run with 0W20 and 4 with 5W-20 test oils for 100,000 miles each with a test oil having only 0.05% phosphorus. This is to test the newer GF-5 pending specification. All engines were then broken down and tested for wear. Oil testing was done at 5k and at 10k miles. Each oil was specified to run only 3k miles by Ford under these “severe” conditions but were purposefully run to 10k miles to test the worst case conditions. They consumed an average of 3 quarts of oil over the 10k runs. They stated that the formulation of 20 grade oils required an evolutionary improvement in base stock properties. (This may account for the occasional superior UOA seen over the basic 30 grade oils in similar applications). Both test oils were made entirely of mineral base stocks. The 0W20 was 83.5% base oil and 6.2% viscosity modifier. The 5W-20 was 83.8% and 5.9% respectively. Base oil viscosities were 4.24 and 4.52 at 100 C and the final viscosities were 8.7 and 8.9 respectively. They stated that retail 0W20 oils are generally formulated with synthetic base stocks. Note the lesser percentage of VII used compared to 10 or 20 years ago. This may account for the minimal shear thinning seen in todays oils. The taxis used were 2001 Ford Windstar 3.8L V6 vehicles with an overhead valve pushrod cam-in-block valvetrain. Field results were as follows: There were no significant differences in wear metals between the two oils. All were less than expected. The viscosities were not tested until 5k and averaged 10 cS, up from 9 at the start. By 10k miles the viscosities were up to 12. HTHS started at 2.6 and rose to 3.1 and 3.4 at 5 and 10k. Low temperature characteristics showed that the 0W became a 5W early on and both became a 10W by the 10k limit of each oil run. They stated that oxidation was not adversely effected by the lowered ZDDP. Oil consumption was only 1 quart for the entire 10k interval in 2 cars with a newer, modified crankcase ventilation system. There was one car with 0W20 and one with 5W20 that had this trend. (This shows the importance of the system to oil consumption. It is not thin oil passing by the valve guides nor rings but rather the type of ventilation system that causes increased oil consumption here). The 0W20 had 0.2 more MPG, significant at the p-value of 0.14. 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). They concluded that the oils provided excellent durability, oxidative and viscosity control despite lowered ZDDP in severe, high temperature conditions. The only significant difference was that the 0W20 gave slightly better fuel economy. They admit that consumers have concerns over 0W or “thin” oils in general. However, they stated that the “Industry” generally agreed that low temperature performance benefits motor oil performance. aehaas
Interesting paper. However, the study compared 0W20 vs 5W20 oils. Furthermore, the 0W20 become quickly 5W30 and ended very thick 10W30 by the end of the study. Thus, this has no bearing on the OP question. BTW, the p value for the MPG difference is too high to be statistically significant. I still stand by my point that there is no big difference between most 5W20 and 5W30 oils.
 
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
6,614
Location
southeast US
 Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
 Originally Posted By: sayjac
Where it's been manufacturer recommended by Honda and Ford; Is there any scientific data proving that 5w20 has not performed as well as or better than using a 5w30 would have over the same time frame? Is there any scientific proof that engine wear on these vehicles has increased in comparison to 5w30 and that the engine life of the vehicles using 5w20 shortened? Is there any scientific data to prove that the vehicles (Honda and Ford) in use over this time span have failed at a greater rate than engines using a heavier weight? I'm not referring to anecdotal rhetoric or viscosity theory. I'm am referring to scientific studies proving that 5w20 has not performed as well or better as say 5w30 or 10w30 over the same period. In other words, any empirical evidence that I should not continue to follow either Honda or Ford's (now others) 5W20 recommendation.
Don't be silly, there is little difference in viscosity between available 5W30 and 5W20 oils (except for GC or HM oils). On the other hand there was a study showing increased wear in taxi service in Las Vegas with 5W20.
My bad, the study was done on NY taxicabs and oil in question was 0W20. Here is the link to an abstract: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/922342
 

Sayjac

Thread starter
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
14,780
Location
The Old North State
Don't be silly, there is little difference in viscosity between available 5W30 and 5W20 oils. Silly? The reason I chose 5W30 is because the change by Honda and Ford was from 5W30 to 5W20. And, if you've read this board there has been much debate about the questions I raised as a result of the change from 5W30 to 5W20. Didn't sound quite so friendly jacek. Thought my questions were posed in a very civil manner and I'd like to keep the discussion that way. Looks like the Las Vegas taxi study using the 20 weight oils didn't show increased wear to me. Back to point in question, is there any empirical evidence that I, or anyone using 5w20 should not continue to follow the manufacturers recommendation?
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2002
Messages
4,687
Location
Central Arkansastan
 Quote:
Interesting paper. However, the study compared 0W20 vs 5W20 oils. Furthermore, the 0W20 become quickly 5W30 and ended very thick 10W30 by the end of the study. Thus, this has no bearing on the OP question.
I don't think they became 5w and 10w-30, as I read the article, to me it says they became 5w-20 and 10w-20. I see no "30w".
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
2,145
Location
NC
I've always been tempted to run 5w20 in my Saturn but I can't build up enough courage.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
36,265
Location
NY
 Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
 Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
 Originally Posted By: sayjac
Where it's been manufacturer recommended by Honda and Ford; Is there any scientific data proving that 5w20 has not performed as well as or better than using a 5w30 would have over the same time frame? Is there any scientific proof that engine wear on these vehicles has increased in comparison to 5w30 and that the engine life of the vehicles using 5w20 shortened? Is there any scientific data to prove that the vehicles (Honda and Ford) in use over this time span have failed at a greater rate than engines using a heavier weight? I'm not referring to anecdotal rhetoric or viscosity theory. I'm am referring to scientific studies proving that 5w20 has not performed as well or better as say 5w30 or 10w30 over the same period. In other words, any empirical evidence that I should not continue to follow either Honda or Ford's (now others) 5W20 recommendation.
Don't be silly, there is little difference in viscosity between available 5W30 and 5W20 oils (except for GC or HM oils). On the other hand there was a study showing increased wear in taxi service in Las Vegas with 5W20.
My bad, the study was done on NY taxicabs and oil in question was 0W20. Here is the link to an abstract: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/922342
Engine Oil Viscosity and Bearing Wear: Field Test Results Document Number: 922342 Date Published: October 1992 Pretty old test results. Dr. Haas's papers are more current. A lot has changed since 92.
 

Sayjac

Thread starter
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
14,780
Location
The Old North State
 Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Date Published: October 1992 Pretty old test results. Dr. Haas's papers are more current. A lot has changed since 92.
Good catch, I hadn't noticed that. And, they did do teardown in the LV taxi's.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
 Originally Posted By: Tim H.
 Quote:
Interesting paper. However, the study compared 0W20 vs 5W20 oils. Furthermore, the 0W20 become quickly 5W30 and ended very thick 10W30 by the end of the study. Thus, this has no bearing on the OP question.
I don't think they became 5w and 10w-30, as I read the article, to me it says they became 5w-20 and 10w-20. I see no "30w".
 Quote:
The viscosities were not tested until 5k and averaged 10 cS, up from 9 at the start. By 10k miles the viscosities were up to 12.
The oils were sub 30 at onset of testing and by 10k were nearly a 40 weight. While probably not planned in this test, this is how Amsoil used thickening to their advantage in extended drains in the past. Going that far out there, the oxidation would compensate for potential fuel dilution ..etc..etc. The longer you went out, the higher you climbed in visc.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,756
Location
CA
 Originally Posted By: Captain_Klink
This interesting article is post by Dr AEHaas from BITOG. Evaluation of SAE 0W20 and 5W20 GF-4 Prototype Formulations in Severe Taxi Fleet Service, Amanda Damen, Petro-Canada, Nigel Broom and Rolfe Hartley, Infineum USA LP, and Michael Riley, Ford Motor Co. My review: The Las Vegas taxi service is considered the most severe for testing high temperature fluids. Four taxis were run with 0W20 and 4 with 5W-20 test oils for 100,000 miles each with a test oil having only 0.05% phosphorus. This is to test the newer GF-5 pending specification. All engines were then broken down and tested for wear. Oil testing was done at 5k and at 10k miles. Each oil was specified to run only 3k miles by Ford under these “severe” conditions but were purposefully run to 10k miles to test the worst case conditions. They consumed an average of 3 quarts of oil over the 10k runs. They stated that the formulation of 20 grade oils required an evolutionary improvement in base stock properties. (This may account for the occasional superior UOA seen over the basic 30 grade oils in similar applications). Both test oils were made entirely of mineral base stocks. The 0W20 was 83.5% base oil and 6.2% viscosity modifier. The 5W-20 was 83.8% and 5.9% respectively. Base oil viscosities were 4.24 and 4.52 at 100 C and the final viscosities were 8.7 and 8.9 respectively. They stated that retail 0W20 oils are generally formulated with synthetic base stocks. Note the lesser percentage of VII used compared to 10 or 20 years ago. This may account for the minimal shear thinning seen in todays oils. The taxis used were 2001 Ford Windstar 3.8L V6 vehicles with an overhead valve pushrod cam-in-block valvetrain. Field results were as follows: There were no significant differences in wear metals between the two oils. All were less than expected. The viscosities were not tested until 5k and averaged 10 cS, up from 9 at the start. By 10k miles the viscosities were up to 12. HTHS started at 2.6 and rose to 3.1 and 3.4 at 5 and 10k. Low temperature characteristics showed that the 0W became a 5W early on and both became a 10W by the 10k limit of each oil run. They stated that oxidation was not adversely effected by the lowered ZDDP. Oil consumption was only 1 quart for the entire 10k interval in 2 cars with a newer, modified crankcase ventilation system. There was one car with 0W20 and one with 5W20 that had this trend. (This shows the importance of the system to oil consumption. It is not thin oil passing by the valve guides nor rings but rather the type of ventilation system that causes increased oil consumption here). The 0W20 had 0.2 more MPG, significant at the p-value of 0.14. 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). They concluded that the oils provided excellent durability, oxidative and viscosity control despite lowered ZDDP in severe, high temperature conditions. The only significant difference was that the 0W20 gave slightly better fuel economy. They admit that consumers have concerns over 0W or “thin” oils in general. However, they stated that the “Industry” generally agreed that low temperature performance benefits motor oil performance. aehaas
So a 20wt beats a 20wt??? I'm not sure how this means anything since taxis see very few cold starts but run for hours on end.
 
Top