Ford's write up on their reasons for use of 5W-20
- Thread starter Rodbuckler
- Start date
- Status
You guys are right, just look at my terrible 5w-20 uoa! After 7,600 miles i have 3ppm of copper, 9ppm of lead, 2ppm of aluminum, 8ppm of iron.. Obviously 5w-20 is too thin to protect my engine, and ill probably need a rebuild in another year or two.
http://home.comcast.net/~apexigsx/m1june.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~apexigsx/m1june.jpg
I am thinking it must have to do with the difference in molecule size, and loss in the oil filter. The Modular motor flows a high oil volume, the bearing clearances are similar to the previous Windsor series (5W-30 engine), and the valvetrain notoriously loves the 5W-20.
I run the thickest oil that doesn't give the sluggish feeling, and that is a 5W-20 at the very top end of the range. The very thin 30's also work well when the engine is warm, and many people successfully run 5W-30 in these engines. Just give the engine what it likes.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
It isn't (too thick). I really don't accept any arguments about it being too thick. What's equally as odd is that everyone accepts the exact opposite. They assert that JUST because it's not accepted in the rest of the world ..that using lighter is just as invalid a comparison here. What they fail to realized, much like our world trade numbers, we are probably equal to the entire globe's automotive size in units operating on the road.quote:
Originally posted by bar1:
How can a 30wt be too thick for Ford/Mazda and Honda engines when thats the recommended visc. in all other parts of the world????
This is the laughing part of this whole thing. We've got the largest operating fleet of personal transportation on the planet. We're not Europe ..or the industrialized Asain nations ..nor are we the third world. I think that we top all of them in usage.
Why can't anyone see them as being either antiquated or more "population specific" in their usage.
I still think Drivebelt had an excellent write up as to why 5w-20 is not recommended outside NA much.
"These recommendations of different weight oils for the same engine in different parts of the world has to do with the different oil basestock supplies around the world. Grp I basestocks are still predominately used outside of North America (Canada/US) -- and even in Europe. There is comparatively very little Grp II supply of basestocks outside of NA.
A couple of new Asia-Pacific plants that produce GrpII/III’s (and in Europe) have come on stream in the last couple of years, but before that there was virtually no supply of Grp II’s in Asia or Europe. Even then, these Grp II plants can only supply a very small fraction of the base oils needed if areas like Asia wanted to switch from Grp I to II basestocks for their motor oils. To put this in perspective, in 2003 about 75% of the world Grp II supply was in NA, and we just have enough Grp II supplies to meet our demand for motor oils. Some independent producers were worried about the supply of Grp II’s to meet the new GF-4 spec’s, because Grp II’s would basically be required to meet the NOACK volatility requirements and Grp I would basically almost be shut out completely. For the rest of the world, they have to use mostly Grp I’s or synthetics -- no choice. In Japan (2003) 84.4% of the oil basestock supply was Grp I -- 7.4% Grp II.
There is simply no way to make a quality 5w-20 oil from a Grp I that is going to hold up very long in an engine. Without any supply of Grp II hydrocracked oils, the only way to make a good 5w-20 would be to use synthetics -- Grp III’s and up. But then, if a manufacturer spec’s 5w-20 outside NA, they would basically be forcing these people to use synthetics -- and the cost issue comes into play. The average motorist will balk at the cost of synthetics.
Ideally, one wants to use a thinner oil like a 5w-20 or 5w-30 over a 10w40 because of fuel mileage and likely better oil circulation, but the problem is that thinner basestocks don’t hold up as well a thicker ones -- particularly with regard to NOACK volatility, and I’d imagine somewhat with regards to thermal stability. The aromatics in a Grp I break down quickly and the oil losses it lubricity causing more wear. Thinner oils also generally show somewhat more wear. So using a Grp I thinner oil is going to be like a double whammy as far as wear is concerned. One can compensate this somewhat by using higher weight oils that don’t show as much wear and hold out better. If you ‘re using a Grp I oil, you need every edge you can get in better protection. Fuel economy and the relatively very small benefits of thinner oil (few %) are of a distant secondary concern. There also is the issue that in very warm or “tropical” climates like Indonesia and many parts of the world, lighter weight oils probably won’t make as much difference in fuel mileage as in cooler climates. And, if you’re already using much smaller more fuel efficient engines to begin with (rest of world outside US) then a few % gas mileage really doesn’t really hurt that much. Engine protection becomes a more important parameter with Grp I based oils.
The problem is also compounded by the fact that Grp I oils don’t flow at cold temperatures as well as Grp II’s, so to make a 5w-20/30, you have to use thinner basestocks with I’s than if you blended with Grp II’s -- making things even worse.
Were seeing OCI’s of 10,000 miles in a lot of vehicle’s these days, and half that -- 5K for severe service. I think a 5w-20 blended from Grp I oil would be severely stretched to make 5K or much over that. With a Grp II -- no problem. I like this quote that pretty well sums up the performance gap between Grp I/II’s …
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chevron.pdf
The inherent oxidation stability advantage that Group II stocks have for passing these tests is apparent in today’s engine oils. For example, Cummins and Chevron found that some commercially available engine oils consistently passed the MRV TP-1 after a 400-hour double-length Cummins M-11 test while others failed1 Subsequent analysis showed that the oils that passed were formulated with Group II. The oils that failed were formulated with Group I. A more recent study showed that Group I formulated oils stayed in grade only about a third as long as Group II (125 hours for Group I vs 400 hours for Group II) in heavy-duty engine oils formulated with the same non-optimized general offering package.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grp II basestocks, because they cost the same as Grp I’s, change the equation. Why not get the benefits of a thinner oil if it protects just as well or better and costs no more. I’d take a Grp II based 5w-30 (or even 5w-20) over any Grp I based oil -- by a country mile."
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=003782;p=4
"These recommendations of different weight oils for the same engine in different parts of the world has to do with the different oil basestock supplies around the world. Grp I basestocks are still predominately used outside of North America (Canada/US) -- and even in Europe. There is comparatively very little Grp II supply of basestocks outside of NA.
A couple of new Asia-Pacific plants that produce GrpII/III’s (and in Europe) have come on stream in the last couple of years, but before that there was virtually no supply of Grp II’s in Asia or Europe. Even then, these Grp II plants can only supply a very small fraction of the base oils needed if areas like Asia wanted to switch from Grp I to II basestocks for their motor oils. To put this in perspective, in 2003 about 75% of the world Grp II supply was in NA, and we just have enough Grp II supplies to meet our demand for motor oils. Some independent producers were worried about the supply of Grp II’s to meet the new GF-4 spec’s, because Grp II’s would basically be required to meet the NOACK volatility requirements and Grp I would basically almost be shut out completely. For the rest of the world, they have to use mostly Grp I’s or synthetics -- no choice. In Japan (2003) 84.4% of the oil basestock supply was Grp I -- 7.4% Grp II.
There is simply no way to make a quality 5w-20 oil from a Grp I that is going to hold up very long in an engine. Without any supply of Grp II hydrocracked oils, the only way to make a good 5w-20 would be to use synthetics -- Grp III’s and up. But then, if a manufacturer spec’s 5w-20 outside NA, they would basically be forcing these people to use synthetics -- and the cost issue comes into play. The average motorist will balk at the cost of synthetics.
Ideally, one wants to use a thinner oil like a 5w-20 or 5w-30 over a 10w40 because of fuel mileage and likely better oil circulation, but the problem is that thinner basestocks don’t hold up as well a thicker ones -- particularly with regard to NOACK volatility, and I’d imagine somewhat with regards to thermal stability. The aromatics in a Grp I break down quickly and the oil losses it lubricity causing more wear. Thinner oils also generally show somewhat more wear. So using a Grp I thinner oil is going to be like a double whammy as far as wear is concerned. One can compensate this somewhat by using higher weight oils that don’t show as much wear and hold out better. If you ‘re using a Grp I oil, you need every edge you can get in better protection. Fuel economy and the relatively very small benefits of thinner oil (few %) are of a distant secondary concern. There also is the issue that in very warm or “tropical” climates like Indonesia and many parts of the world, lighter weight oils probably won’t make as much difference in fuel mileage as in cooler climates. And, if you’re already using much smaller more fuel efficient engines to begin with (rest of world outside US) then a few % gas mileage really doesn’t really hurt that much. Engine protection becomes a more important parameter with Grp I based oils.
The problem is also compounded by the fact that Grp I oils don’t flow at cold temperatures as well as Grp II’s, so to make a 5w-20/30, you have to use thinner basestocks with I’s than if you blended with Grp II’s -- making things even worse.
Were seeing OCI’s of 10,000 miles in a lot of vehicle’s these days, and half that -- 5K for severe service. I think a 5w-20 blended from Grp I oil would be severely stretched to make 5K or much over that. With a Grp II -- no problem. I like this quote that pretty well sums up the performance gap between Grp I/II’s …
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chevron.pdf
The inherent oxidation stability advantage that Group II stocks have for passing these tests is apparent in today’s engine oils. For example, Cummins and Chevron found that some commercially available engine oils consistently passed the MRV TP-1 after a 400-hour double-length Cummins M-11 test while others failed1 Subsequent analysis showed that the oils that passed were formulated with Group II. The oils that failed were formulated with Group I. A more recent study showed that Group I formulated oils stayed in grade only about a third as long as Group II (125 hours for Group I vs 400 hours for Group II) in heavy-duty engine oils formulated with the same non-optimized general offering package.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grp II basestocks, because they cost the same as Grp I’s, change the equation. Why not get the benefits of a thinner oil if it protects just as well or better and costs no more. I’d take a Grp II based 5w-30 (or even 5w-20) over any Grp I based oil -- by a country mile."
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=003782;p=4
I don't see any explanation for lack of Xw20 grades.
Europe might have a shortage of Gr II but why would it matter?
The Euro drivers have been practicing the extended OCI's for years, with high quality synthetics.
There is an abundance of high quality Gr.III and IV based oils over there.
It wouldn't be much of a chellenge for them to make quality 5w20 synthetics that eclipse the NA Gr II based 5w20 oils in every category, short of price of course.
In addition there is a much better availability of the 0w30 oils out there to begin with.
If the Euro market needed to produce the xw20 they could have every opportunity to do just that.
"Without any supply of Grp II hydrocracked oils, the only way to make a good 5w-20 would be to use synthetics -- Grp III’s and up. But then, if a manufacturer spec’s 5w-20 outside NA, they would basically be forcing these people to use synthetics -- and the cost issue comes into play. The average motorist will balk at the cost of synthetics."
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I don't see any explanation for lack of Xw20 grades.
Europe might have a shortage of Gr II but why would it matter?
The Euro drivers have been practicing the extended OCI's for years, with high quality synthetics.
There is an abundance of high quality Gr.III and IV based oils over there.
..and if we were practicing extended OCI's for years (at all)..we would probably be spec'ing synthetics too. We don't. Virtually every auto rolling off the assemblyline is spec'd for anything but synthetics.
Your point?
Europe might have a shortage of Gr II but why would it matter?
The Euro drivers have been practicing the extended OCI's for years, with high quality synthetics.
There is an abundance of high quality Gr.III and IV based oils over there.
..and if we were practicing extended OCI's for years (at all)..we would probably be spec'ing synthetics too. We don't. Virtually every auto rolling off the assemblyline is spec'd for anything but synthetics.
Your point?
My point is that the Euro factory specified oil change intervals are much longer than here.
How can their engines last as long as N.A. engines with 10-15K mi intervals if their dino oils are Group I based?
BTW, I've never seen any info on the supposede lack of Group II in Europe.
Can anyone verify this, please.
How can their engines last as long as N.A. engines with 10-15K mi intervals if their dino oils are Group I based?
BTW, I've never seen any info on the supposede lack of Group II in Europe.
Can anyone verify this, please.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Pehaps because they aren't using Group I base oils and anything not synthetic is just a carrier for additives? Just a guess.
Again, you obviously missed the "Which oil in NA meets VW 501.XX" threads that flooded the board. Euro designed cars that are in use in NA spec synthetics too ...or they do not spec as long a OCI as the Euros.
What Euro has a 10-15k MILES OCI on dino? Is it gasoline? And what spec's does that dino ..if it's dino ..meet??
I would like to see that TSB.
I don't remember seeing it when I was a Ford Service Manager. I do remember a TSB that talks about backfitting 5W20, but I don't remember it saying that the only reason was fuel economy.
I have a feling that you may be quoting it inaccurately.
Although I don't worship at the altar of Ford engineering, any unabused reasonably maintained Ford engine will last as long as anyone elses.
- Status
Similar threads
