are 5w-20 oils now being used in engines that previously ran 5w-30?

[ZiTS]

I, too, used to be among the Xw-20 haters. However, after being on this board for quite a while and eventually having made the switch, I have no problems using it now IN VEHICLES WHICH THE MANUFACTURER SPEC'S IT. As stated, what is the problem in using a shear stable -20 weight vs. a not so stable -30 weight?

It should be common knowledge by now that the main reason for making the switch was probably due to CAFE, not any magical new engine building technology. On that same note, engines are now designed, engineered, and built to much higher standards, and the auto manufacturers probably realized that a lighter weight oil could be safely used. It's not that the engine was specifically designed to be used with a -20 weight, but that it will run fine on a -20 weight. They are getting the best of both worlds: meeting the lubrication/protection needs of their engines, while at the same time increasing the MPG ratings. The best of both worlds, and all they had to do was change the "3" to a "2"!

Most UOA's done on -20 weights have been very good. Of course, there are a few exceptions, and those seem to be from use in engines that weren't designated to be using a -20 weight in the first place. From what I've seen, Motorcraft 5w-20, Mobil 1 0w-20, Castrol GTX 5w-20, and Pennzoil 5w-20 have consistently been some of the best built and highly regarded oils on this site. If you're engine calls for a -20 weight, then use it and sleep easy at night. You have plenty of solid oils to choose from. If it doesn't call for a -20 weight, don't use it and sleep easy at night. Let's just puh-leeeease stop saying that -20 weights are no good and shouldn't be used under any circumstance.

[ May 28, 2004, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: ZiTS ]

 

[crossbow]

I'm sorry, but there's no way in **** a 5w20 will ever be BETTER. I don't know why they are now recommending it in older engines, but it certainly isn't to provide less wear.

Lets change this quote around to have a bit of fun shall we?

I'm sorry, but there's no way in **** a 5w30 will ever be BETTER. I don't know why they are now recommending it in older engines, but it certainly isn't to provide less wear.

Quote changed to reflect the attitude of those with 40 wt engines told to put 30wt's in them.

As someone pointed out in another thread...eventually we'll all be running 0w-5 wt oils. As technology increases, viscosity (like megahertz/gigahertz) is no longer a determining factor of performance.

If you told me 5 years ago that we'd need a graphics card with a gig of ram on it, I'd of laughed in your face. Same diff. Train moves fast, hang on, or get off at the next stop

.

[ May 28, 2004, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: crossbow ]

 

[mountainhouse]

Yup. Whenever technology shifts, there are always those resisting it. I think it's good to recall the the Luddites of merry old England at a time like this. I have visions of angry backyard mechanics storming through my neighborhood to confiscate my 5w20. Scary stuff.

[ May 28, 2004, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: mountainhouse ]

 

[crashz]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomJones76:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZmOz:
Yeah, this is one of the reasons nobody here much likes 5w20. It's just too thin, even manufacturers agree. (Because they used to recommend something thicker for the same engines) I certainly wouldn't be caught dead with it in any of my engines...whether it's a little old Honda or a 5.7 Hemi...

---

ZmOZ,
I have to challenge your assertion that the manufacturers "agree that 5w20 is too thin."
The fact that they previously suggested 5W30 might mean 5W30 was better... but you could also conclude that now Ford and Honda are *smarter* than they used to be, and realize that now that they have more research data, they had previously erred in reccomending 5W30 rather than 5W20.
Ask yourself why Ford would reccomend 5W20 retroactively for a 1992 Ford Crown Victoria? Is there any selfish incentive for them to do that? A 1992 vehicle certainly has no retroactive affect on Ford's CAFE standings today.

---

Here's why Ford would recommend a 5w-20 in an old push rod 302: They are in economic hurt and need to sell more cars. Or they were at the time that they recommended the retrofit.

Those old cars and truck were lasting way to long on 10w-30 SL rated oils!

I'm a little biased against the 5w-20 only because of my recent experience with it. My truck (2001 F150 with 4.2L V6) ran fine with it, but it seemed to aggravate my piston slap issues. I'm back to a thicker oil because of it. D@mn my clumsy hands for dropping the sample!

 

[Whimsey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashz:
QUOTE]Here's why Ford would recommend a 5w-20 in an old push rod 302: They are in economic hurt and need to sell more cars. Or they were at the time that they recommended the retrofit.

Those old cars and truck were lasting way to long on 10w-30 SL rated oils!

I'm a little biased against the 5w-20 only because of my recent experience with it. My truck (2001 F150 with 4.2L V6) ran fine with it, but it seemed to aggravate my piston slap issues. I'm back to a thicker oil because of it. D@mn my clumsy hands for dropping the sample!

---

Uh Oh, the conspiracy "enthusiasts" are on the loose again

. Seriously I didn't know the 4.2L V6's also suffered from Ford's piston slap. I thought that was only with the 5.4L and 4.6L V8's. Are you sure it's piston slap. Does it go away as the engine warms up? And usually the piston slap was noticeable more so in the cold winter temps after sitting over night.

Whimsey

 

[jthorner]

quote:

---

Here's why Ford would recommend a 5w-20 in an old push rod 302: They are in economic hurt and need to sell more cars. Or they were at the time that they recommended the retrofit.

Those old cars and truck were lasting way to long on 10w-30 SL rated oils!

---

What a bunch of unmitigated nonsense. Just because you can think something doesn't make it true.

John

 

[Motorbike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crossbow:


As someone pointed out in another thread...eventually we'll all be running 0w-5 wt oils. As technology increases, viscosity (like megahertz/gigahertz) is no longer a determining factor of performance.

---

Once they get smart and build dry sump engines and devise a means to preheat the oil they can really tighten up the clearances and drop the vi. Then add some new groovy replacable prefilter and we might see fill for life with if Total Seal type rings are used .

Life might be 100k though

 

[T-Keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Whimsey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashz:
QUOTE]Here's why Ford would recommend a 5w-20 in an old push rod 302: They are in economic hurt and need to sell more cars. Or they were at the time that they recommended the retrofit.

Those old cars and truck were lasting way to long on 10w-30 SL rated oils!

I'm a little biased against the 5w-20 only because of my recent experience with it. My truck (2001 F150 with 4.2L V6) ran fine with it, but it seemed to aggravate my piston slap issues. I'm back to a thicker oil because of it. D@mn my clumsy hands for dropping the sample!

---

Uh Oh, the conspiracy "enthusiasts" are on the loose again

. Seriously I didn't know the 4.2L V6's also suffered from Ford's piston slap. I thought that was only with the 5.4L and 4.6L V8's. Are you sure it's piston slap. Does it go away as the engine warms up? And usually the piston slap was noticeable more so in the cold winter temps after sitting over night.

Whimsey

---

I think if you read enough websites, and internet posts you find that every engine ever made has piston slap.

-T

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surprise:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZmOz:
Has anybody done a UOA on a 5w20 and then 5w30 in the same engine and oil? Again, I'd be willing to bet alot of money the 5w30 would be better. I know it's most certainly not going to be the other way around. Not to mention most idiots that drive cars blindly follow the 7500 mile recommendations, I'd hate to see how thin a 5w20 is after 7500 miles in a V8...

---

Here are a few examples:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001506
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000785
http://www.mazda6tech.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=26

Are you willing to bet a lot of money now?

---

Isn't this a bit misleading? First all the Mazda examples are with engines of the Ford modular design. The Honda example are only of the K20A3 4 cyl. design. And the links of comparisons, are between full-syns M1 5w30 and M1 0w20.

I believe a more far comparison would compare the new 5w20s and quality semi-syns 5w30 in something other than a Ford modular engine and Honda 4 bangers.

 

[crossbow]

Does it really matter? You guys wouldn't be happy if someone had a SRT-4 Dodge Viper in here with a 5w-20 vs 15w50 comparison with the 5w-20 showing less wear.

It would be called a "fluke". Or that the sample must of been "taken wrong". There was a "sample mixup" Or that he didn't drive the car as hard with the 5w-20...."Run two intervals and see!!!", "There was still 15w50 left over protecting the engine!"

and thats why.

[ May 28, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: crossbow ]

 

[MikeR]

The OA's on this site seem to indicate that 5w-20's on the market are pretty darn good oils.

But what frightens me is that the oil manufacturers must beef up their dinos with Group III, plus a lot of moly and boron in order for the 5w-20 just to meet requirements.

If moving down to 5w-20 in itself were harmless, the 5w-20 oils on the shelf would use the same basestocks and additive packs as the corresponding 5w-30's.

MR

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MikeR:
The OA's on this site seem to indicate that 5w-20's on the market are pretty darn good oils.

But what frightens me is that the oil manufacturers must beef up their dinos with Group III, plus a lot of moly and boron in order for the 5w-20 just to meet requirements.

If moving down to 5w-20 in itself were harmless, the 5w-20 oils on the shelf would use the same basestocks and additive packs as the corresponding 5w-30's.

MR

---

Actually, if you compare the various grades from a particular brand, you'll see the additive levels are relatively uniform. Pennzoil, for example, uses moly and boron in all their grades, and while the 5w20 has more moly than the other grades, the 10w30 has more boron than even the 5w20.

All grades of Mobil 1, which is PAO based, have about the same level of moly and boron that Pennzoil uses in their conventional oils.

And Conoco/Motorcraft 5w20 is a complete enigma when it comes to additives: very little moly and no boron, and yet it turns in super UOAs every time. Molakule has pointed out that this oil has additives in it that don't show up in a typical VOA/UOA.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crossbow:
Does it really matter? You guys wouldn't be happy if someone had a SRT-4 Dodge Viper in here with a 5w-20 vs 15w50 comparison with the 5w-20 showing less wear.

It would be called a "fluke". Or that the sample must of been "taken wrong". There was a "sample mixup" Or that he didn't drive the car as hard with the 5w-20...."Run two intervals and see!!!", "There was still 15w50 left over protecting the engine!"

and thats why.

---

Yes I think it does matter. Some of you guys point to these UOAs without giving any consideration to the other variables involved and then use that as proof to recommend them for every vehicle around, no matter the climate, intended use or driving style.

I never said the new 5w30s are bad oils. Actually, I think they're pretty darn good, considering the cost. And in the right applications, the consumer wins big time.

I too look at those UOAs and began to believe these ligther Vis oils were the hot ticket. So much so I tried it in one of my own vehicles. Since the results weren't that great, I'm not yet convinced that it's the panacea everyone is looking for.

If they work for you, be happy and enjoy.

 

[TomJones76]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomJones76:

Originally posted by ZmOz:
[qb] Ask yourself why Ford would reccomend 5W20 retroactively for a 1992 Ford Crown Victoria? Is there any selfish incentive for them to do that? A 1992 vehicle certainly has no retroactive affect on Ford's CAFE standings today.

---

Here's why Ford would recommend a 5w-20 in an old push rod 302: They are in economic hurt and need to sell more cars. Or they were at the time that they recommended the retrofit.

---

This is trivia at this point in the discussion, but the '92 Crown Vic actually used the 4.6L OHV motor. It didn't have the 302, which was have been in '91 and earlier LTD Crown Victoria models. I note that Ford never specced 5W20 for the 302, to my knowledge.

 

[crashz]

Unless I read it wrong, the trucks and vans were included in the 5w-20 back date. Which would include the 302, 351 and 460. I couold be wrong about this, but either way, what I meant was a older well worn engine with some life left in it.

My previous post is a little speculative and accusing, but I feel it does address the question logicaly.

My point is that cars and trucks that had previously been run for thousands of miles on 5w-30 or 10w-30 are now supposed to run a 5w-20. This is going backwards. I really can't see how the 5w-20 should be used in a high mileage engine. These engines are already worn and clearances are larger than original. So why would Ford recommend this oil for an older, high mileage vehicle?

[ May 28, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: crashz ]

 

[jthorner]

quote:

---

Some of you guys point to these UOAs without giving any consideration to the other variables involved and then use that as proof to recommend them for every vehicle around, no matter the climate, intended use or driving style.

---

Really? I have not seen any posting which suggests that 5W-20 oils are appropriate in all circumstances. I have, however, seen postings attacking the use of 5W-20 oils as a sinister plot to wear out cars sooner including in this very thread.

Can you point to some of these recommendations to use 5W-20 "for every vehicle around" you are talking about?

John

 

[Sin City]

quote:

---

I note that Ford never specced 5W20 for the 302, to my knowledge.

---

Ford has updated their recommendation for the use of 5W-20 motor oils in older vehicles.
web page

[ May 28, 2004, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Sin City ]

 

[Whimsey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by T-Keith:
I think if you read enough websites, and internet posts you find that every engine ever made has piston slap.

---

Funny thing is I'm a active member in 3 Ford truck sites and have yet to see any mention of piston slap in the 4.2L V6's. Other problems yes, but not piston slap. Maybe you can educate me.

Whimsey

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jthorner:

quote:

---

Some of you guys point to these UOAs without giving any consideration to the other variables involved and then use that as proof to recommend them for every vehicle around, no matter the climate, intended use or driving style.

---

Really? I have not seen any posting which suggests that 5W-20 oils are appropriate in all circumstances. I have, however, seen postings attacking the use of 5W-20 oils as a sinister plot to wear out cars sooner including in this very thread.

Can you point to some of these recommendations to use 5W-20 "for every vehicle around" you are talking about?

John

---

OK John, I probably made a bad choice of words there. But let me ask you this. Does it not sound somewhat suspect to recommend the new 5w20s for climates as diverse as winter in International Falls, MN, to summer in San Antonio, TX? From short easy 5 mile commutes in mild weather to towing in mountaineous terrain on cross-country drives in 100F plus summer heat? And in different engines designs from the tight aluminum main/rod bearing Ford modulars to the metal spewing LS1s? (Sorry, Patman.)

Seems to me, there should be a little more analysis put into the selection of an oil other than pointing to someone else's UOAs without looking all the variables involved. As an example, look at these Universal Averages from Blackstone Labs on various engine designs. If the new 5w20s are mostly tested on low wear metal generating engines such as the Ford modulars and some of the Toyotas, I don't believe were seeing the whole picture.

code:

---

Ford 4.6 5.4 5VZFE Jeep2.5L LS1

Al-------4------4------3------7------9

Cr-------1------1------0------1------2

Fe------17-----17------8-----32-----27

Cu-------7------6------8-----17-----42

Pb-------1------1------4------4-----13

Sn-------1------0------1------1------3

Ni-------1------1------0------0------1

Mn-------1------1------0------0------3

Ag-------0------0------0------0------0

Ti-------0------0------0------0------0

---

Then there just the unreported factors, such as, "Oh Yeah I forgot to say I added two qts of make-up oil and changed the filter midway thru the OCI". And then forgets to report that he did the Patman flush before starting the OCI. Then there are the people who put in maintenace doses of whatever and forget to report that too. Etc, etc.

Like I said many times before. I think these 5w20s are good oils. I just don't think they're the best for every situation and don't care for blanket recommendations without a little more consideration of the many other variables involved when making an informed recommendation.

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
And then forgets to report that he did the Patman flush before starting the OCI.

---

You gotta tell us what is the "Patman flush." I'm just dying to know.