Ok, heres the deal…I've been reading a lot of the other posts regarding HM oil. Many people are claiming that it works great in their newer engines as well. But, what I want to know is why anyone would want to fill the crank case of a relatviley new car with a non-energy conserving oil, especially during colder temps?
energy conserving vs. non-energy conserving
- Thread starter SFCP
- Start date
- Status
Energy conserving means the oil will get you about 1% better gas mileage than the reference oil that they test it against. Which is nice, but mostly unnoticeable. Some folks would rather have a bit thicker oil for the sake of engine protection than a bit thinner for the sake of gas mileage.
"a bit thicker oil for the sake of engine protection"
This is assuming that thicker is giving better protection.
This is assuming that thicker is giving better protection.
you are correct. The reason that some HM oils are thicker is so that they thicken up more when shutdown and thus don't leak as badly from bad seals.
If you notice, there aren't any 0wXX high mileage oils out there. If there IS one, I'll stand corrected.
It is not the best idea to use high mileage oils that do not meet the energy conserving specs if the new car requires them.
Any car requires them if the engine is in prestine conditino. My 1995 Chev Lumin with 135K is in prestine condition. Seals do not leak, no oil consumption. I guess where this is all going is another discussion of how the 75K mile suggestion by HM oils is such load of #@$%!. HM oils should be prescribed to engines that need them based on certain factors, not the mileage.
Last edited by a moderator:
When MaxLife synthetic first came out I started using it off and on in my 2004 Honda S2000. The first fill was at 7500 miles. I chose it based on a respected triboligist's recommendation that it was a high quality oil with a very robust additive package. It included high amounts of moly (which he wasn't a huge fan of) and didn't see why it wouldn't be a great oil for new as well as old engines. Since the F22C1 engine likes moly very much, especially for breakin, I went with it. I have 33K miles on the car now and find ML syn to be one of the best oils for quieting valvetrain noise. 10W30 is the recommended oil for all F20C1 and F22C1 engines, so that's the grade I use. It doesn't thicken or shear in the S2000, but it does thicken a little in my 2000 Tundra V-8.
I have the SM rated ML syn in my car right now. As far as gas mileage goes, this car doesn't lend itself to a driving style that will save gas. Overall, it gets around 24 MPG no matter what, and I haven't noticed my credit card bills coming down any since the SM revolution on any of my vehicles! Where's the 1% savings anyways????
I have the SM rated ML syn in my car right now. As far as gas mileage goes, this car doesn't lend itself to a driving style that will save gas. Overall, it gets around 24 MPG no matter what, and I haven't noticed my credit card bills coming down any since the SM revolution on any of my vehicles! Where's the 1% savings anyways????
Agreed! If your engine is in good shape, and your seals don't leak, why would you even want to use a HM oil? FWIW I don't see a need for HM oils in my cars, and both mine and my wife's cars each have over 270k miles on them!
IMHO HM oils should mostly be used by those who have leaks, and don't want to bother fixing them. For those of us with cars that don't leak, why bother?
I will run Maxlife in everything, except maybe a new engine if the warranty won't allow it. Energy conserving is sometimes achieved by temporary viscosity collapse in the bearings, using what at one time were problematic VIIs. Maxlife is good for new and old engines, and as INDYMAC said, it doesn't sheer. Oil does not need CAFE considerations to be a good oil, so I prefer one that does not sport CAFE related logos on the bottle (e.g., starburst and "energy conserving").
I have no strong opinion on that subject. But that is the argument people use, which is what SFCP wanted to know.
- Status
Similar threads
