5w20...It works

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bryanccfshr

Bryanccfshr

Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
6,730
Location
New Braunfels
I must admit how wrong I have been. Today I picked up a 5 qt jug of MC 5w20 at WM and drained the 5k mile old RTS 5w40 and replaced it with the 5w20 in my wifes 2004 Mitsubishi outlander.
Later I took a drive.
The difference is actually remarkable. I was so wrong by denying 5w20. My Thickheadedness was wrong but shortlived.

with the 5w20 the engine performance and willingness to rev quickly is much better. It made driving the car much more enjoyable even only a minute afterr stgartup it was perky and after 10 miles it was **** zippy.

I denyed feeling a difference when going from 30 wt to 40 wt.. there must have beeen but do to the longer trips at the time I didn't notice.

This oil grade that was on the recomended list for the vehicle (5w20,5w30 10w30 ) owners manual and truley woke the motor up.

no uoa for the old oil no need, I aint running it again in a gas engine that recomends thinner oils. I apologize for pushing it. I am humbled by facts.
 
My respect for you just went up a couple notches. Happy motoring.
cheers.gif
 
When I first bought my 2002 Ranger, I was shocked by the 5w20 recommendation. I honstly worried the thin oil would expire the engine before 100K. BITOG and used oil analysis changed my mind and I am now a 5w20 advocate for engines where its recommended.
 
Define "Zippy"....just kidding. For my Honda, I'm stuck with a big stash of Mobil 1 0w-30, a thin oil in general. If not I'd be all over the MC 5w-20.
 
Bryan,

Do you have MPG comparisons between the MaxLife Syn, RTS, and now the MC 5-20?

Yes, MC 5-20 5qt jugs at WM are one of the better oil buys IMO.
 
I also had an interval of M1 0w30 for 8500 miles before the RTS. Unfortunately I have not kept MPG log, The data would have been very usefull at this point.. "seat of the pants" is not very convincing but the experiment took a turn when I went from a 40 to 20 wt. Let this be a lesson that I need to keep better records when experimenting.

Zippy- the engine revs to higher RPMs with less throttle input.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Auto-Union:
For my Honda, I'm stuck with a big stash of Mobil 1 0w-30, a thin oil in general.
Click to expand...
M1 0W30 is not "a thin oil in general." Current specs as per Mobil is 11 cst at 100c. 63 cst at 40c.
 
Noticed the same thing when going from GC to M1 0w-20. Much smoother and much more responsive engine with the 20wt oil.
 
quote:
Originally posted by buster:
Noticed the same thing when going from GC to M1 0w-20. Much smoother and much more responsive engine with the 20wt oil.
Click to expand...
You should send all your GC to me then
grin.gif
 
farrarfan, you're correct as far as the new SM formulation goes, but up until now M1 was considered a "thin" 30...the SL 5w30 was 56 at 40° and 10 at 100°. The new SM is 64.8 at 40° and 11.3 at 100°, IMHO a substantial increase. It's for just this reason that I'm having to use my own brew of 50/50 5W-20 and 5w30 to achieve the "old" viscosity that my motor likes.
 
quote:
with the 5w20 the engine performance and willingness to rev quickly is much better. It made driving the car much more enjoyable even only a minute afterr stgartup it was perky and after 10 miles it was **** zippy
Click to expand...
quote:
Noticed the same thing when going from GC to M1 0w-20. Much smoother and much more responsive engine with the 20wt oil.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I noticed those performance increases immediately upon switching from 5w30 to 5W-20 of Mobil 1 earlier this year.

Additionally, engine now starts much quicker when warm.
 
If someone could formulate a 5W-20 that would spec out with the same hot & warm viscosities, HTHS, and TBN as RL or Amsoil 5W-40, I would be more than willing to try it! But then, I guess it would not have all of the "advantages" that a 5W-20 supposedly possesses?
 
Daily:

What disadvantages do you see in the xW-20 oils? The large and ever-growing mass of evidence seems to be suggesting that these oils are outstanding in the cars for which they are meant.
 
quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk:
Daily:

What disadvantages do you see in the xW-20 oils? The large and ever-growing mass of evidence seems to be suggesting that these oils are outstanding in the cars for which they are meant.
Click to expand...
I was implying that I would try it even though it was NEVER speced for my car (LS1 V-8).
wink.gif
 
quote:
Originally posted by RF Overlord:
...the SL 5w30 was 56 at 40° and 10 at 100°. The new SM is 64.8 at 40° and 11.3 at 100°...
Click to expand...
And the M1 5w30 version before that was 53.7 @40°C and 9.7 @100°C.
 
Responsiveness & easier starting are common with 5W-20s. I tried it - got the same results. Very pleased indeed! I was scared using it in an older vehicle. So I beefed it up using a half-bottle of VSOT.
 
I have no problem with the "Butt Dyno" or other subjective measure of how the engine is behaveing with the new thinner oil. I do have a problem though with the lack of a UOA. How are you going to judge if the 5W20 is truly doing better then the RTS 5W40? Just because something feels better or sounds better does not always mean much. A key example would be how people feel when given amphetamines/speed(sp). Most people will claim that they feel great even at high dosages. Most claim that their mental abilities are enhanced and that their body feels great! When you look at the cognitive tests,lab tests i.e. blood and urine tests you find that all but a few cognitive abilities drop and their body starts breaking down. The higher the dosage the more pronounced the effects. My point here is that just because something feels better or sounds better dose not always acurately indicate performance. This is why UOA is so useful.

I have no doubt that you will be fine no matter wich viscosity you run! I am sure that if 5W20 was on the recomended list for that vechile it will perform just fine. It would have been great though to see some non-subjective science based testing seeing how you had already run the 15W40!!!!
cheers.gif


P.S. I do question this statement though.
quote:
no uoa for the old oil no need, I aint running it again in a gas engine that recomends thinner oils. I apologize for pushing it. I am humbled by facts.
Click to expand...
Exactly what facts are you refering to as humbleing you????? I saw no facts in the above.
 
Thick and thin....the controversial topic never ends. Some of us will change, some of us won't. I'm the later crowd. Sure, any engine will spin faster with a thinner oil...it's just common sense, but I am totally backing JB on this one. I'd rather have a fully and knowingly protected engine with a nanosecond reduction in peak rpm reach than a not-so-sure about it engine gaining peak rpm at the same time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom