5W20 Going on 10 years, any proof?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


Is there any "scientific" data proving the 20wts have done as good? I doubt you're going to find that kind of info anywhere.

My biggest argument is not using a 20wt in a cold or mild climate. It's using it in a very hot climate when a 30wt is the same viscosity as a 20wt.
 
Originally Posted By: WGermany
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?


Our 2010 Toyota Sienna takes 5-30.
Took it to dealer for first service ( first two are free) they put in Chevron 10-30.
 
It doesn't show a comparison between 5w-30 and the 20 grades under the same service. What it does, as most studies do, is show that no catastrophic results occurred with 20 weights.

In taxi service 10k can easily be 20k in terms of fuel consumption. It is, as you stated, all steady state wear, so it will typically be "flat" compared to the startup wear curve.
 
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".
21.gif



You missed this part:

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.
HTHS started at 2.6 and rose to 3.1 and 3.4 at 5 and 10k.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
It doesn't show a comparison between 5w-30 and the 20 grades under the same service. What it does, as most studies do, is show that no catastrophic results occurred with 20 weights.


If you look closely at the data, their dino 0W20 quickly turned into thick 10W30. We know that synth 0W20 don't do that. Thus this study is useless for the purpose of this discussion.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
It doesn't show a comparison between 5w-30 and the 20 grades under the same service. What it does, as most studies do, is show that no catastrophic results occurred with 20 weights.


If you look closely at the data, their dino 0W20 quickly turned into thick 10W30. We know that synth 0W20 don't do that. Thus this study is useless for the purpose of this discussion.


It's boldly apparent. But we're getting scattered here in direction. I'd call it a side note. The visc test was done at 5k ..which can surely mean 8k-10k of normal oxidation and volatility had been experienced (in normal usage).

There's a reason that there aren't any 0w Group II oils.


friendly- It would help ME (the dummy) if you really spell out your logic train on some things. It's not a criticism, per se~, but I but when you blurt out "Thus this study is useless for the purpose of this discussion." ..you often offer little more than a tidbit on how you came to the conclusion that doesn't take me to the (necessarily) same destination. (and I can't say it any other way in Gary speak - so please don't get insulted). This is a very similar logic train that my wife uses in some things. A whole lot of intermediate terrain is jumped over ..yet she puts it together with ease. Again, no insult intended. You have to forgive me for my lack of alternative expressive faculties
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

friendly- It would help ME (the dummy) if you really spell out your logic train on some things. It's not a criticism, per se~, but I but when you blurt out "Thus this study is useless for the purpose of this discussion." ..you often offer little more than a tidbit on how you came to the conclusion that doesn't take me to the (necessarily) same destination. (and I can't say it any other way in Gary speak - so please don't get insulted). This is a very similar logic train that my wife uses in some things. A whole lot of intermediate terrain is jumped over ..yet she puts it together with ease. Again, no insult intended. You have to forgive me for my lack of alternative expressive faculties


OK, OP asked about scientific studies comparing 5W20 to 5W30 oils. Then The LV taxicab study was offered comparing 5W20 to 0W20 oils. My take is that the 5W20 vs 0W20 study is off topic and proves only that their 0W20 was similar to 5W20. The significance of their wear findings is dubious especially since the oils thickened to 5W30 and 10W30 rapidly.

I will reiterate my point. There too little difference to be measured between 5W30 oils that shear down rapidly to 5W20 versus 5W20 oils that are shear stable or thicken to 5W30.

One more thread trying to dissect the nonexistent difference between 5W20 vs 5W30 is not going to be productive IMHO (no offense to the OP though).
 
Thank you.

what this study (whether or not it's pertinent to the topic) proves is that the oils used were not stable over 10k of use and that excessive wear was not apparent. If there's any proof of the viability of 20 weights in severe service, then it's in terms of "wear averaging" since they were only 20 grades for half of the text ..that's IF viscosity had impact upon wear rates. It also shows why there are no 0w conventional oils. You can blend one, but it won't be a 20 grade for too long and you'll be consuming oil in the "leveling off" for service conditions.

So, yeah. I guess I agree. I just read more into what the test did show.
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac
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.


I guess you have to blame my English Professor who taught me that the phrase "don't be silly" is socially accepted.

If that offended you, you have my deepest and most sincere apologies.
 
A post 2002 study would be more applicable. That's where oils had major evolutions. I'd almost call it a revolution. Euro's invaded us with alphabet soup.
 
Thanks Mr. Allan- I think the point of this discussion is moot seeing the study was from 92. I know oils have improved in giant leaps since then.

AD
 
Actually AD there were two studies brought into the discussion. The one with the abstract link from NY posted by jacek is from 92, while Haas' LV study is more current (using 2001 Windstars).

My original questions were designed to address as many of the negative reactions regarding 5w20 vs 5w30 that I had read since reading Bitog, before and after I joined.

Now if Haas's study article is not valid because it compares to 20 weight oils, or they thickened, or there wasn't much start up on taxi's, so be it.

But, it is hard for me to ignore the teardown results/comments including;

"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)."

Add that to the 5w20 testing Motorcraft did in AZ and NV desert, and MN taxi's, sound's like some thorough testing with solid results.
21.gif
But if that means nothing then it's back to my questions. Right now, it looks like the answer the question(s) is, no.

As far as the "silly' comment I suppose if you meant ,absurd, ridiculous or irrational that would be better than weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish.
LOL.gif
cheers3.gif
 
It shows that 20wts protect adequately. I've never argued that, at least not for a non-performance low torque engine. Still I would love to see half the engines filled with a 10w-30 and half with a 0w-20 and then torn down.

There was the paper somewhere on here where a Ford engineer stated that the engines tested on the dyno with a 20wt and 30wt, the engines on the 20wt (run hard of course) showed much more wear.
 
Originally Posted By: thinshavings
Originally Posted By: WGermany
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?


Our 2010 Toyota Sienna takes 5-30.
Took it to dealer for first service ( first two are free) they put in Chevron 10-30.


Not to go too far off on a rabbit trail, but I'm starting to wonder whether there's any internal coordination at Toyota re oil recommendations. For 2010, the Sienna, per the basic oil change instructions on TIS is recommended only 5w-30 oil. The 2010 Avalon, which has the very same 2GR engine, in TIS, allows 5w-30, 10w-30, and 0w-20, but with no mention of 5w-20??? Seems odd.

At any rate, it's all starting to move me, slowly but surely, toward the "it doesn't really matter" camp.
 
Quote:
0w-20, but with no mention of 5w-20??? Seems odd.


Automatically requires a synthetic.
 
Originally Posted By: ekpolk

Not to go too far off on a rabbit trail, but I'm starting to wonder whether there's any internal coordination at Toyota re oil recommendations. For 2010, the Sienna, per the basic oil change instructions on TIS is recommended only 5w-30 oil. The 2010 Avalon, which has the very same 2GR engine, in TIS, allows 5w-30, 10w-30, and 0w-20, but with no mention of 5w-20??? Seems odd.

At any rate, it's all starting to move me, slowly but surely, toward the "it doesn't really matter" camp.


You forget that the same engine works harder and with hotter oil in sienna than avalon or camry (on hwy only, no difference in city). I have the same engine in RAV4 and can tow up to 3500 lbs without oil cooler. The similar towing package in sienna has oil cooler. But I also agree, that "it doesn't really matter" most of the time.

BTW, 5W30 in RAV4.
 
Last edited:
The study is about 20 weight run in severe service for 100,000 miles which is a long way, driven to the point the base oil was breaking down and getting thicker and thicker on them, driving the oil way past the point that it should have been changed, to simulate severe abuse. How much of the additive or TBN do you think would still be active at that point? Very little of none, I would hazard. After engines were torn down, they were observed for wear. All of the nice cross hatch honing of the cylinders was still intact, and the engines were in EXCELLENT condition. Obviously there is no need to do a side by side comparison now of 5w30. We ALREADY KNOW that 5w30 works fine. That part of the study was already done. What we now have is the 20 weight part of the study. (Am I missing something here???) What the question was... was "does 5w20 also work fine?" and the answer is YES IT DOES!!! even when abused to the point the base oils have gotten into the upper end of 30 weight, tear down of the engine was still perfect. As I recall, oil FIRST shears down as low as it will go, and then it starts to degenerate and become thicker. The engines tolerated the oil going through this whole cycle, a total of 10 times, something very few of us would even do. 5w30 oils ALREADY HAVE been studied. We now know that it is fine to use 5w20 or 0w20, and we can save fuel by doing so. We can also speculate that if the oil is changed in a more diligent manner, and the car is driven the way most of us do (go to work, park, go home), then the thinner oil should also be beneficial since it will lube the engine faster at start up time, and protect better while the engine is warming up. That study would be harder to do, because you have to wait 10 years for the average person to put on 120,000 miles. However, we know from the "non studied" group of the vast majority of people using 20 weight, that we have not heard of a rash of engine failures, and I think, unless there is a vast conspiracy to pay people off so they don't complain about their engine wearing out, that probably we would have heard by now, and probably car makers would be no longer recommending the 20 weight, instead of what is ACTUALLY happening, which is 20 weight is being recommended more and more.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
API versus Euro oil, for the same engine
Replies
17
Views
1K
KCJeep
mrjlube
Mobil special
Replies
3
Views
885
jeepman3071
sloinker
Today is the day for an oil change.
Replies
4
Views
984
tnt_motorsports
D
What oil should I use 2016 Mazda 6 Skyactiv 2.5L non turbo?
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
wareze
0
2014 Grand Cherokee burning oil
Replies
7
Views
1K
atikovi
Back
Top