I've been a 5W30 guy myself(QSUD 5W30 is a go to oil for me). Especially because I don't see the difference in fuel economy and I find the 30s to keep my engines that little bit smoother & quieter.
Claims for 5w30 not being tested at 5w20?
- Thread starter MaDMaXX
- Start date
I recently changed from 5w-30 to 0w-20 in my Ranger and it has never run so smooth and mpg is up too. About 1.5 mpg. And that's on SuperTech!
0W-20 generally might be more likely to use a better quality GTL or PAO. However that may just be to cover the deficiencies of using a lower viscosity base stock. The finished product isn't necessarily better.
You also have to be careful you are not comparing apples to oranges. M1 5W-20 EP might be predominantly PAO. While another type of 0W-20 might be a GII+/GIII blend.
Could you elaborate on the deficiencies of 0w20 as compared to 5w20? Personally I have seen countless examples of synthetic 5w20 oils that were lower in viscosity, on paper, versus the same brand and product line 0w20.
Unfortunately a 1.5 mpg increase is not due to the change in oil grade. That defies physics.
I think i know what you're referring to, can you show the graph of temperatures where it shows 20 isn't enough down there in SC?Ill always use a 30 over a 20, my climate doesnt call for a 20 and I could care less about a .20 increase is gas mileage.)
An interesting individual with the nick SAE20, who unfortunately can write in Russian, often deals with grades as, say, more problematic and less problematic from slightly different perspectives. Where he doesn't avoid the plain "better base oils" theme completely some more interesting aspects still shine through, like with: https://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic/42092-0w30-или-0w20/?do=findComment&comment=1725020
Also has a long personalized thread where he recently condensed some of his viewing regarding HTHS etc.: https://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic...маслам/page/134/?tab=comments#comment-1718217
Also has a long personalized thread where he recently condensed some of his viewing regarding HTHS etc.: https://www.oil-club.ru/forum/topic...маслам/page/134/?tab=comments#comment-1718217
Formulating a 0W-20 vs a 5W20 is no different than formulating a 0W-40 vs a 10W-40. At some point you run into permanent and temporary shear issues by attempting to use VII and lower VI Basestock to accomplish that task. You need a Basestock with better inherent qualities for the task. That doesn't automatically mean a 0W-20 will perform better than a 5W-20 when subjected to HTHS in temporary and permanent shear. In many cases your assuming this. Without test results that's all it is, an assumption.
They make GII Basestock with 11.9 cSt @ 100C and 2% NOACK that I suspect could be used to help formulate a 10W-40 or 15W-40 Blend that could give the typical 0W-40 Synthetic fits.
Actually, physics support my statement.
Unfortunately Your increased gain is more than a magnitude greater than what can actually happen given your post. I am sorry to disagree with your statement, and I do not doubt you may have experienced a MPG increase you posted.
You may need to remain open to another explanation. There is an overwhelming probability that the viscosity change is not the cause of the majority of the improvement you are experiencing.
Did I say anywhere that it wasnt enough? Answer: No, if the manufacturer says it is.
But I do live in an area that will produce higher oil temperatures then many northern states.
Furthermore my wifes Mazda says 30 is acceptable in other countries and my GM V6 SUV specs 30. My past Dodge v8 SUV spec'd 20 but said 30 may be used.
Again, since I live in a warm climate my 30 will flow just as easy as a 20 because I operate in warmer temperatures then much the nation. Add to that, my current SUV specs 30, so would be safe for me to even go 40 IF I wanted too. All these oils are 20 (pulling number out of a hat) times more thick at start up and until the oil warms up to 50,60,70 degrees so once hot we are splitting hairs over a 20 vs 30 and again, in a hot climate completely insignificant. .
Last edited:
Yes, and is always the case, measuring something is only the beginning. Being able to attribute the measurement to an isolated variable is the much more difficult part.
You may not be accounting for interrelated controls and mechanisms of a modern engine that can snowball in to a worse than anticipated result.
My Jetta shouldn't have lost 6 MPG aver going from a 20 to a light 40 grade. But it did. And it did result in a detune of the engine.
a 2005 Ranger 3.0? It’s a pretty straight forward reliable design.
I can see that if the Jetta ECM somehow interprets that in needing a 8:1 Fuel Mixture with a resulting 20% Misfire Rate. I would be very concerned about emissions equipment.
Going from a 20 to 40 is pretty significant in an engine that calls for a 20. So would leave that out of the equation of a 20 to 30.
On the Dodge V8 engines, going to a more heavy weight oil then recommended can interrupt the operation of the cylinder deactivation at highway speeds due to increased drag. I cant get into specifics though, just sold the truck, had a 2008, best darn engine I ever had but was the 4.7 v8 not the mag V8 which in my owners manual made a ref to what I am trying here.
So I am wondering on the VW if some situation might be similar.
I can agree with some though, that say they notice an MPG difference from 20 to 30. But who knows, maybe with some super small engines? Like a Chevy spark?
On the Dodge V8 engines, going to a more heavy weight oil then recommended can interrupt the operation of the cylinder deactivation at highway speeds due to increased drag. I cant get into specifics though, just sold the truck, had a 2008, best darn engine I ever had but was the 4.7 v8 not the mag V8 which in my owners manual made a ref to what I am trying here.
So I am wondering on the VW if some situation might be similar.
I can agree with some though, that say they notice an MPG difference from 20 to 30. But who knows, maybe with some super small engines? Like a Chevy spark?
Or with engines that become smaller due to cylinder deactivation? The current Mazda 2.5 goes to two cylinders at programmed points.
Good point, somehow though, the thread has made a "left turn" from discussing 5/20 and 5/30 oils which I feel are too close to matter for MPG, yet a good point about cylinder deactivation, now a person posted about a 40 weight, now we are going a bit over the top, from the OP post which has nothing to do with a 40. *L*
Similar threads
