From 20W50 to 5W20 (oem spec) bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I looked it up, the Internets telling me the last model year for the tempo was 1994 and if it had the 2.3 engine it would be 90 hp and 125 torque.

The early Vulcan was available as an option with about 140 hp and 160 torque
 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
95 degrees isn't even hot, it's just warm. It's humid so it feels hot, but it isn't hot.

5w20 is sufficient.


you would lose the 'tude real fast if you were down hure in the southsouth. Unless you have a screamer using the lightweight oil, it makes no sense to skimp on protection when that outweighs the paltry performance gains (i.e FE, ponies) you would get with most oil and ofcourse there are exceptions.

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I looked it up, the Internets telling me the last model year for the tempo was 1994 and if it had the 2.3 engine it would be 90 hp and 125 torque.

The early Vulcan was available as an option with about 140 hp and 160 torque


You realize in 2016 Honda has the turbo 1.5 liter as an option? And it does sub 7 0-60 from stock engine but only available in the EX trim on up?! Also their Si and coupes haven't even been released. ho man.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 06VtecV6
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
95 degrees isn't even hot, it's just warm. It's humid so it feels hot, but it isn't hot.

5w20 is sufficient.


you would lose the 'tude real fast if you were down hure in the southsouth. Unless you have a screamer using the lightweight oil, it makes no sense to skimp on protection when that outweighs the paltry performance gains (i.e FE, ponies) you would get with most oil and ofcourse there are exceptions.

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I looked it up, the Internets telling me the last model year for the tempo was 1994 and if it had the 2.3 engine it would be 90 hp and 125 torque.

The early Vulcan was available as an option with about 140 hp and 160 torque


You realize in 2016 Honda has the turbo 1.5 liter as an option? And it does sub 7 0-60 from stock engine but only available in the EX trim on up?! Also their Si and coupes haven't even been released. ho man.
Ford has called for 5w20 or 0w20 in many of their cars for 20 years. They have no trouble in the heat. Texas doesn't even get as hot as Phoenix. Phoenix is the hottest city in the United States, often 115+. Your car/motor oil doesn't care about humidity.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: 06VtecV6
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
95 degrees isn't even hot, it's just warm. It's humid so it feels hot, but it isn't hot.

5w20 is sufficient.


you would lose the 'tude real fast if you were down hure in the southsouth. Unless you have a screamer using the lightweight oil, it makes no sense to skimp on protection when that outweighs the paltry performance gains (i.e FE, ponies) you would get with most oil and ofcourse there are exceptions.

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I looked it up, the Internets telling me the last model year for the tempo was 1994 and if it had the 2.3 engine it would be 90 hp and 125 torque.

The early Vulcan was available as an option with about 140 hp and 160 torque


You realize in 2016 Honda has the turbo 1.5 liter as an option? And it does sub 7 0-60 from stock engine but only available in the EX trim on up?! Also their Si and coupes haven't even been released. ho man.
Ford has called for 5w20 or 0w20 in many of their cars for 20 years. They have no trouble in the heat. Texas doesn't even get as hot as Phoenix. Phoenix is the hottest city in the United States, often 115+. Your car/motor oil doesn't care about humidity.


good point on the oil not caring about the humidity but what about some morning dew mixed in making your morning a prim target for fuel dilution on short trips.
 
You guys realize what temp your engine runs at right? To an engine 115 is cold. I'm willing to bet that the coolant temp in Phoenix doesn't vary 5 degrees from the coolant temp in Edmonton once the vehicles are at operating temp...let alone oil
 
I've put close to 100K on my '04 Lincoln LS(it's up to 149K total) and in my ownership it's run nothing but the OEM spec 5W-20. For the last 80K or so, I've been running Mobil 1 at a 10K change interval, which is usually about a year(give or take a month either way).

On our coldest days here, we see temperatures south of 0ºF, and the warmest days are north of 100º. My engine keeps ticking right along and runs like new on a steady diet of the specified oil.

If I were stressing the engine(my driving sometimes borders on "spirited" but that's as far as it goes) I would consider a heavier grade, but I've been perfectly content with 5W-20.

By the way, I also run 20W-50...in my nearly 50 year old MGB. That's the OEM spec for the sloppy tractor engine in it, and it runs well with that weight.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
For one oil change I used M1 15-50 in my Ford Tempo back about 1995 and right off I noticed a hugh lack of power.

Was it the fault of the oil or the fault of Ford?
wink.gif



In my pre BITOG days I assumed "thickerer is betterer". My 1996 Zetec spec'd 5w30. After a few changes of synthetic 5w30 I went to using synthetic 5W-50 for a few years. My mpg went into the c*r*a*p*p*e*r along with the lack of power. Finally went back to 5w30 oils and my mpg and power went back to what it was before going to the 5W-50 oils. I don't think it was a Ford problem, more likely using a "missed matched" oil. Not every engine can provide satisfactory performance on a much higher viscosity oil, especially lower powered 4 cylinder engines it seems. "Disclaimer" I have no scientific proof of the above statements, only my "unprofessional" observations
grin.gif
.

Whimsey
 
I just have a sore spot over mid sized Ford sedans since I had the 1983 LTD on LPG, with terribly low power. I still can't look at a Ford sedan smaller than a Crown Vic without getting the willies. And, that soured me on 4 cylinder engines for a long time, too. I still haven't owned another 4 cylinder, except on a motorcycle, where they really belong.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
I just have a sore spot over mid sized Ford sedans since I had the 1983 LTD on LPG, with terribly low power. I still can't look at a Ford sedan smaller than a Crown Vic without getting the willies. And, that soured me on 4 cylinder engines for a long time, too. I still haven't owned another 4 cylinder, except on a motorcycle, where they really belong.


I was sour on 4s for a REALLY long time, and for a while was a V8 junkie with straight 6s coming in second(I detest 90º V6s that are V8s with two cylinders lobbed off).

My daily driver remains a V8, and any potential replacement for it(which is on the table) needs to be a V8/RWD. I've actually been giving some Panther platforms consideration-in particular a late model Town Car or-if I could find a nice one-a Mercury Marauder. BMW 3-series with a straight 6(and RWD) have also come under consideration.

All of that said, my mom bought a 4 cylinder Buick Lacrosse a year ago, and that has really changed my opinion on what I-4s are capable of. It is a DI engine, but also does a neat trick with the starter motor that makes it a sort of kind of hybrid. Basically, letting off the gas and/or stepping on the brakes recharges a li-ion battery in the trunk, and the power from that is used to supplement the power from the IC engine on take-off.

My MG is also a good old fashioned cast iron overhead valve 4 cylinder tractor engine. It's not especially powerful(peak torque of 95hp and peak torque of 110ft-lbs when new and before smog equipment) but has its perks. Specifically, being a typical British engine it has a long stroke which translates into a fair bit of low-end torque-something lacking in a lot of the 9000 rpm red-line buzzboxes today. Most modern econoboxes would beat it in a drag race(I think it was rated at 11s or so for 0-60 when new) and it's the only car I've driven where it ran out of power before I ran out of guts-I graced 100 going down hill, but 95 is a realistic top speed for it at least at the moment on flat ground. In a lot of respects, that's pretty pathetic for a one ton car, but on the other hand it shines in the twisties and I can have a ton of fun driving it there around 50-60 mph. Down shifting to 3rd out of a curve puts me right in a "sweet spot" of the power band to make things just feel "right."
 
I would have to agree. These days, there are plenty of four cylinder engines with more than enough power available. As for running out of power before guts, that was the LTD's motto. It topped out at 119 km/h, and it sure as heck wasn't due to gearing.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
We use 5w20 here in the southern USA where it gets really hot too, the engine cooling system can handle normal driving in high ambient temperatures fine and if you abuse it you'll just lose some timing.


I bet you can feel the increase in power and responsiveness with the lighter oil right? I imagine 10w30 would be a good compromise of a thicker viscosity without going to antiquated 20w50.


I think I am going to move our engines calling for 5W-20 to 10w30 due to age an mileage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom