You are kidding right? You think this is a trend?
CAFE and 5W-20 - The Truth
- Thread starter Art_Vandelay
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
You are kidding right? You think this is a trend?
Well...I was poking fun at the whole debate
Currently running 0w20 M1, so we'll see how that compares in a few months.
You are kidding right? You think this is a trend?
Well...I was poking fun at the whole debate
So is CAFE just a North American initiative? Are there any cases where North America spec's a different weight than the rest of the world given the same engine?
Last edited:
It is just NA.
Plenty of threads about what Ford, Toyota, Honda and so on require in other countries vs US.
But remember that a Accord in Europe (and other places) is different here. We get the smog stuff and more.
Take care, bill
Plenty of threads about what Ford, Toyota, Honda and so on require in other countries vs US.
But remember that a Accord in Europe (and other places) is different here. We get the smog stuff and more.
Take care, bill
Originally Posted By: Mustang_Cougar
Relax, "Art."
Maybe you should try the "search" function next time you believe you have some ground-breaking commentary to share. Seriously, you just might be surprised to find out that this particular subject has been discussed ad nauseum. Furthermore, just as with the recent rehashing (re-bashing?) of Mobil 1, nothing comes out of it but arguing and conjecture.
BTW: As far as I'm concerned, I really don't care what you think of me, being as you've been here since November and have a handful of posts. Perhaps I should say something to the effect that "your inability to use that basic tool called the "search" function is indicative of a weak minded idiot." However, I'm not doing that...I'm just illustrating that you need to chill out a bit and rest those hurt feelings. Perhaps sarcasm is a concept lost on you; you'd better learn it, as this forum relishes in it (to illustrate, see the 1K Mobil 1 thread).
Buh-bye, Art.
Who made you the forum police?
I would suggest you press the "nice" button, or go back to the garage and choke more kittens.
Anger is a terrible thing.
Relax, "Art."
Maybe you should try the "search" function next time you believe you have some ground-breaking commentary to share. Seriously, you just might be surprised to find out that this particular subject has been discussed ad nauseum. Furthermore, just as with the recent rehashing (re-bashing?) of Mobil 1, nothing comes out of it but arguing and conjecture.
BTW: As far as I'm concerned, I really don't care what you think of me, being as you've been here since November and have a handful of posts. Perhaps I should say something to the effect that "your inability to use that basic tool called the "search" function is indicative of a weak minded idiot." However, I'm not doing that...I'm just illustrating that you need to chill out a bit and rest those hurt feelings. Perhaps sarcasm is a concept lost on you; you'd better learn it, as this forum relishes in it (to illustrate, see the 1K Mobil 1 thread).
Buh-bye, Art.
Who made you the forum police?
I would suggest you press the "nice" button, or go back to the garage and choke more kittens.
Anger is a terrible thing.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Anger is a terrible thing.
That's 3 doors down on the left ..right next to Arguments. This is Abuse.
Anger is a terrible thing.
That's 3 doors down on the left ..right next to Arguments. This is Abuse.
Since this topic has once again been revisited, let me chime in with my usual comments and question.
Given that back in my younger days, the 1950's, when most cars were using a straight 20 weight oil and, in my case getting 140,000 miles out of a 1954 Ford V-8 with no signs of being worn out, do you think that today's 0W-20's and 5W-20's are less capable oils than those old 20 weights?
Given that back in my younger days, the 1950's, when most cars were using a straight 20 weight oil and, in my case getting 140,000 miles out of a 1954 Ford V-8 with no signs of being worn out, do you think that today's 0W-20's and 5W-20's are less capable oils than those old 20 weights?
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
It is just NA.
Plenty of threads about what Ford, Toyota, Honda and so on require in other countries vs US.
But remember that a Accord in Europe (and other places) is different here. We get the smog stuff and more.
Take care, bill
So Europe smog requirements are not as stringent as North America? I thought their fuel was better than ours, they had diesel particulate filters before us as well.
It is just NA.
Plenty of threads about what Ford, Toyota, Honda and so on require in other countries vs US.
But remember that a Accord in Europe (and other places) is different here. We get the smog stuff and more.
Take care, bill
So Europe smog requirements are not as stringent as North America? I thought their fuel was better than ours, they had diesel particulate filters before us as well.
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
Since this topic has once again been revisited, let me chime in with my usual comments and question.
Given that back in my younger days, the 1950's, when most cars were using a straight 20 weight oil and, in my case getting 140,000 miles out of a 1954 Ford V-8 with no signs of being worn out, do you think that today's 0W-20's and 5W-20's are less capable oils than those old 20 weights?
I think today's oils are much better than the oils you mentioned with one exception. The older straight weight oils used no VIIs and the modern ones do (most of them). How much of a factor that is, I have no idea.
Since this topic has once again been revisited, let me chime in with my usual comments and question.
Given that back in my younger days, the 1950's, when most cars were using a straight 20 weight oil and, in my case getting 140,000 miles out of a 1954 Ford V-8 with no signs of being worn out, do you think that today's 0W-20's and 5W-20's are less capable oils than those old 20 weights?
I think today's oils are much better than the oils you mentioned with one exception. The older straight weight oils used no VIIs and the modern ones do (most of them). How much of a factor that is, I have no idea.
If you have ever enjoyed the air of an Italian city you would find that Euro standards are not all that stringent.
I guess no one would complain much if it were 5w30 right? The base oil of 5w20 and 5w30 is almost the same 4cst., so they are almost the same. The 20wt. will have less vii's to shear down and will maintain it's working weight longer that the 30wt., but they both will get to the same thing fairly quickly. The older mono oils also left deposites, and perhaps they were not all bad some buildup could cushion somethings and seals up others.
I have never been to Europe. Just USA and Canada. All I have seen is they use a lot more smaller passenger vehicles and trucks compared to North America, so I generally thought they were trying to conserve fuel by offering vehicles with a lower average fuel economy. I know fuel is more expensive there tho.
Originally Posted By: Jaymus
PP 5W-20 and Valvoline 5W-30, but the thicker oil returned a better UOA. It's probably still on page one of the UOA section. I'll look for it tomorrow.
two back to back UOA with different viscosities and different brands. MEANINGLESS.
I think we've concluded here long ago that CAFE was the primary reason for modern 5w-20 oils but it does not increase engine wear, as demonstrated by UOA, and evidence from people who have posted about fleet use, to include police agencies, who have used 5w-20 and vehicles are still running A-OK with hundreds of thousands of miles. We have some posters here who have well over 100,000 miles on vehicles that have used only 5w-20.
Art makes ti sound like there was some conspiracy to adopt 5w-20 at the expense of engine wear. That's a fallacy IMO.
In addition, modern engine designs that utilize many hydraulically operated mechanisms to include timing chain tensioners, variable valve timing actuators, and cylinder deactivation systems, won't run correctly on anything thicker then 5w-20.
Use 5w-20 with confidence in any engine speced for it.
PP 5W-20 and Valvoline 5W-30, but the thicker oil returned a better UOA. It's probably still on page one of the UOA section. I'll look for it tomorrow.
two back to back UOA with different viscosities and different brands. MEANINGLESS.
I think we've concluded here long ago that CAFE was the primary reason for modern 5w-20 oils but it does not increase engine wear, as demonstrated by UOA, and evidence from people who have posted about fleet use, to include police agencies, who have used 5w-20 and vehicles are still running A-OK with hundreds of thousands of miles. We have some posters here who have well over 100,000 miles on vehicles that have used only 5w-20.
Art makes ti sound like there was some conspiracy to adopt 5w-20 at the expense of engine wear. That's a fallacy IMO.
In addition, modern engine designs that utilize many hydraulically operated mechanisms to include timing chain tensioners, variable valve timing actuators, and cylinder deactivation systems, won't run correctly on anything thicker then 5w-20.
Use 5w-20 with confidence in any engine speced for it.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jaymus
PP 5W-20 and Valvoline 5W-30, but the thicker oil returned a better UOA. It's probably still on page one of the UOA section. I'll look for it tomorrow.
After looking at that, engine break in is likely the biggest factor. PP 5w-20 was run when the engine was newer.
PP 5W-20 and Valvoline 5W-30, but the thicker oil returned a better UOA. It's probably still on page one of the UOA section. I'll look for it tomorrow.
After looking at that, engine break in is likely the biggest factor. PP 5w-20 was run when the engine was newer.
It's not meaningless, it just doesn't show you what the oil would have done alone. To cut the wear in HALF by going to a different brand 5W-30 is showing something. It's not showing what the oil could have done on the 5th OCI with that being the only oil used, but it sure as [censored] ain't meaningless.
I'd like for anyone to show me where a 0W/5W-20 showed better wear numbers than a 30 weight of the same brand.
I'd like for anyone to show me where a 0W/5W-20 showed better wear numbers than a 30 weight of the same brand.
The only way you could prove to me that 5w-20 IN THAT ENGINE produced more wear, would be to run 5w-20 of the same brand for several consecutive intervals, and run 5w-30 of the same brand for several consecutive intervals, after the engine was fully broken in.
If you've learned anything about UOA, the conclusions you've drawn, Jaymus, are meaningless, especially since the PP 5w-20 was used from 10,000 miles to 15,000 miles when the engine was still breaking in. The silicon numbers are indicative of sealant still leaching during break in.
We repeatedly see spikes in wear from simply changing brand of oil, especially with synthetic oil, of the same viscosity.
You shouldn't draw any conclusions from two back to back UOA of different brands and different viscosities, when the engine is still breaking in.
If you've learned anything about UOA, the conclusions you've drawn, Jaymus, are meaningless, especially since the PP 5w-20 was used from 10,000 miles to 15,000 miles when the engine was still breaking in. The silicon numbers are indicative of sealant still leaching during break in.
We repeatedly see spikes in wear from simply changing brand of oil, especially with synthetic oil, of the same viscosity.
You shouldn't draw any conclusions from two back to back UOA of different brands and different viscosities, when the engine is still breaking in.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
The only way you could prove to me that 5w-20 IN THAT ENGINE produced more wear, would be to run 5w-20 of the same brand for several consecutive intervals, and run 5w-30 of the same brand for several consecutive intervals, after the engine was fully broken in.
If you've learned anything about UOA, the conclusions you've drawn, Jaymus, are meaningless, especially since the PP 5w-20 was used from 10,000 miles to 15,000 miles when the engine was still breaking in. The silicon numbers are indicative of sealant still leaching during break in.
We repeatedly see spikes in wear from simply changing brand of oil, especially with synthetic oil, of the same viscosity.
You shouldn't draw any conclusions from two back to back UOA of different brands and different viscosities, when the engine is still breaking in.
+1
Whenever you introduce a oil with a new chemical make up into the crankcase, the engine will have slightly odd wear. Once you use the oil 2-3 OCIs, the engine will put out true wear numbers.
That, and in this case the engine was going through break in.
The only way you could prove to me that 5w-20 IN THAT ENGINE produced more wear, would be to run 5w-20 of the same brand for several consecutive intervals, and run 5w-30 of the same brand for several consecutive intervals, after the engine was fully broken in.
If you've learned anything about UOA, the conclusions you've drawn, Jaymus, are meaningless, especially since the PP 5w-20 was used from 10,000 miles to 15,000 miles when the engine was still breaking in. The silicon numbers are indicative of sealant still leaching during break in.
We repeatedly see spikes in wear from simply changing brand of oil, especially with synthetic oil, of the same viscosity.
You shouldn't draw any conclusions from two back to back UOA of different brands and different viscosities, when the engine is still breaking in.
+1
Whenever you introduce a oil with a new chemical make up into the crankcase, the engine will have slightly odd wear. Once you use the oil 2-3 OCIs, the engine will put out true wear numbers.
That, and in this case the engine was going through break in.
Exactly. The 5W-30 came after the 5W-20. There was no spike, it was cut in half. Further proof that 5W-30 produces less wear in that engine. 5W-20 is for gas mileage, not protection. Engines do fine with it, doesn't mean it's the best thing for them.
Originally Posted By: Jaymus
Exactly. The 5W-30 came after the 5W-20. There was no spike, it was cut in half. Further proof that 5W-30 produces less wear in that engine. 5W-20 is for gas mileage, not protection. Engines do fine with it, doesn't mean it's the best thing for them.
I said ODD wear. Not more.
Plus, the MAJOR point here is, the engine was breaking in. 5w20 would have showed less wear too in a second OCI.
You need to run 2-3 OCIs atleast in a row with each oil, in the same temp, in the same driving conditions to beable to compare them.
What you did shows absolutly nothing.
Exactly. The 5W-30 came after the 5W-20. There was no spike, it was cut in half. Further proof that 5W-30 produces less wear in that engine. 5W-20 is for gas mileage, not protection. Engines do fine with it, doesn't mean it's the best thing for them.
I said ODD wear. Not more.
Plus, the MAJOR point here is, the engine was breaking in. 5w20 would have showed less wear too in a second OCI.
You need to run 2-3 OCIs atleast in a row with each oil, in the same temp, in the same driving conditions to beable to compare them.
What you did shows absolutly nothing.
Jaymus, your argument defies logic.
As an engine breaks in, the wear numbers get better and better... whether you use the same oil or a different oil. Agreed?
So the fact that the UOA was worse for the 10-15k mile fill than for the 15-20k mile fill is what anyone would expect regardless of what oil is used. Right?
So one is left to wonder if the differences between those two UOA's are the result of the natural breakin of the engine producing better numbers over time, or a difference between the two viscocities.
That alone makes this test invalid. Then there's the bit about two different brands, and taking a sample for the first fill of a brand which would also make the test invalid.
As an engine breaks in, the wear numbers get better and better... whether you use the same oil or a different oil. Agreed?
So the fact that the UOA was worse for the 10-15k mile fill than for the 15-20k mile fill is what anyone would expect regardless of what oil is used. Right?
So one is left to wonder if the differences between those two UOA's are the result of the natural breakin of the engine producing better numbers over time, or a difference between the two viscocities.
That alone makes this test invalid. Then there's the bit about two different brands, and taking a sample for the first fill of a brand which would also make the test invalid.
- Status
Similar threads
