Gen4 Subaru Outback, High Mileage Synthetic OCI?

[oil_film_movies]

If using a thicker HTHS 3.5 oil (Euro-spec 0w40), compared to an HTHS 3.0 oil like Subaru recommends, that is an extra oil friction drag of 16%. (hydrodynamic regions) Plain physics in an engine, with total drag on the car from other sources, results in that 16% extra engine friction causing a pretty consistent ~1.5% drop in MPG in tests. For a person who buys $25 worth of gasoline per week, you lose 38 cents per week in wasted gasoline from using a Euro 0w40. Its not much, but its there.

 

[Random_0101]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies

Originally Posted By: pilot1226

Does urban stop and go city driving increase temperatures?

Not for that engine. Other engines may heat up a bit more during stop-n-go. Your engine has massive oil flow, more than most engines, plenty of cooling. A dexos1 5w30 or Mobil1 0w30 (also dexos1), preferably a full synthetic dexos1, is the perfect choice, since dexos1 raises the performance level over a lesser oil that only meets SN GF-5. It just doesn't seem necessary to use the thicker Euro-spec 0w40 oils in your application. Really as long as its a name-brand HM full syn, you're fine. I think a lot of the 5w30 HM full syns don't bother getting the dexos1 approval, yet they are functionally similar.

Alright. So you'd generally recommend any type of synthetic blend or full synthetic high mileage 5w30, right? That's good enough for me. I can shop around between Mobil 1 Super, Castrol, Valvoline, Pennzoil and Havoline blends and full HM's based on price.

Originally Posted By: BufordTJustice

You may want to explore a few drain and fills on your CVT. Fresh fluid does those things wonders. They are hard on fluid.

Funny, this is actually a very heated topic on the Subaru forums - much like these oil threads tend to get. There are people that insist that the CVT is truly lifetime fluid without need to ever replace (and some instances of people above 200k on original fluid), and some people that are replacing it every 60k with Amsoil, Valvoline, or the OEM CVTF fluid. I'm caught in the middle. I have no issues with the CVT performance wise or mechanically, aside from a TSB regarding shaking at low speeds (10-15) when the torque converter locks in, which isn't a big deal to me. Subaru did, however, change the design of the CVT in I believe 2013 or 2014 to use a different type of locking/engagement mechanism for the TC going forward. And the 6-cylinder engines and turbo engines use a "High Torque" version of the CVT. I was anticipating doing a Drain-and-Fill around 105k when I get my timing belt changed. This, however, will only remove about 50% of the original fluid, because the dealership can not and will not do a flush. Unfortunately, it's also a very expensive service, I was quoted above $350 for the CVT service - mostly because the OEM fluid is anywhere between $10-15 per quart, and I'd probably need about 6-7 quarts for the service. Then, there's labor involved with getting the CVT fluid to a specific temperature range, shifting a few times, and then checking fluid level (no dipstick). Fun times. I don't have the ability to measure the temperature because they use the Subaru Select Tool for that, and I've heard of some clever ideas to get around it, but it wouldn't exactly be "by the book".

 

[Random_0101]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

Oil brand/type is not important for that engine but the oil filer is critical. Memorize "57055". This is the Napa Gold filter code for the filter with the correct high bypass spec and is the best for the cost. It is a better media than the Suabru filter too. You can also go with Wix 7055 or the cheaper Napa select (27055). Avoid Tearolators as I had back-toback filter failures.

Would the Napa Gold or Wix filter allow me to run to a 5000 OCI, even with primarily urban driving? Would the OEM filter? I have a hard time finding the specs on the OEM.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: pilot1226

Alright. So you'd generally recommend any type of synthetic blend or full synthetic high mileage 5w30, right? That's good enough for me. I can shop around between Mobil 1 Super, Castrol, Valvoline, Pennzoil and Havoline blends and full HM's based on price.

My wording was not clear. I prefer HM full synthetics (to keep the pistons cleaner over a full interval). The dexos1 spec does raise the bar on oil performance, which is why I mentioned it, so the "Valvoline Full Synthetic with MaxLife Technology" 5w30 (walmart, amazon, etc.) which has the dexos1 spec, is my favorite. I do think that M1 HM 5w30 or Pennz Plat HM 5w30 are probably functionally very close or the same, even though they are not officially dexos1 approved. Castrol Edge HM 5w30 added to the list as probably as good.

 

[BufordTJustice]

Originally Posted By: pilot1226

Funny, this is actually a very heated topic on the Subaru forums - much like these oil threads tend to get. There are people that insist that the CVT is truly lifetime fluid without need to ever replace (and some instances of people above 200k on original fluid), and some people that are replacing it every 60k with Amsoil, Valvoline, or the OEM CVTF fluid. I'm caught in the middle. I have no issues with the CVT performance wise or mechanically, aside from a TSB regarding shaking at low speeds (10-15) when the torque converter locks in, which isn't a big deal to me. Subaru did, however, change the design of the CVT in I believe 2013 or 2014 to use a different type of locking/engagement mechanism for the TC going forward. And the 6-cylinder engines and turbo engines use a "High Torque" version of the CVT. I was anticipating doing a Drain-and-Fill around 105k when I get my timing belt changed. This, however, will only remove about 50% of the original fluid, because the dealership can not and will not do a flush. Unfortunately, it's also a very expensive service, I was quoted above $350 for the CVT service - mostly because the OEM fluid is anywhere between $10-15 per quart, and I'd probably need about 6-7 quarts for the service. Then, there's labor involved with getting the CVT fluid to a specific temperature range, shifting a few times, and then checking fluid level (no dipstick). Fun times. I don't have the ability to measure the temperature because they use the Subaru Select Tool for that, and I've heard of some clever ideas to get around it, but it wouldn't exactly be "by the book".

Well, I've posted about the issues I've had with my 2013 Nissan Altima 3.5S's CVT. The death shudder (belt slippage, I suppose), rough TC lockup, etc. A few drain and refills of Amsoil CVT fluid fixed the issue and I traded that car in. The Subaru transmission is better made, but no fluid is lifetime. That's folly for those people to preach that. I simply measured the exact amount of cold fluid that came out, and then put that EXACT amount back in )Nissan trans is same way; no dipstick). Nissan charged about the same for a simple drain and fill. But that's [censored], because you can do it yourself if you take it slow. I'd explore Amsoil CVT fluid and doing a series of D&F's. Just get a fluid pan with level markings and make sure the vehicle is stone cold and the fluid you're putting in is the same temp. I did a few D&F's spaced 500-1000 miles apart. The original fluid at roughly 20k was FILTHY. The Nissan CVT fluid is supposed to look like bright green antifreeze. Instead, it was nearly black with a slight green tint....with lots of ferrous metals in it and sludge. Across 4 Drain and Fills on the Nissan Xtronic CVT, My fluid level was stated to be "perfect" by the dealer when it went in for a recall service (I had them check the level). They had no idea I changed the fluid and commented on how smooth the trans was around the parking lot. I think being a little adventurous may save you a ton of money.

 

[BufordTJustice]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies

If using a thicker HTHS 3.5 oil (Euro-spec 0w40), compared to an HTHS 3.0 oil like Subaru recommends, that is an extra oil friction drag of 16%. (hydrodynamic regions) Plain physics in an engine, with total drag on the car from other sources, results in that 16% extra engine friction causing a pretty consistent ~1.5% drop in MPG in tests. For a person who buys $25 worth of gasoline per week, you lose 38 cents per week in wasted gasoline from using a Euro 0w40. Its not much, but its there.

You're calculating the fluidic drag caused by the hydrodynamic main bearings. You have not factored in the reduced friction in the valvetrain from the better/thicker oil film on the cams, lifters, etc. Also, better ring sealing around the pistons. I think the difference isn't there in the real world.

 

[Random_0101]

Originally Posted By: BufordTJustice

Originally Posted By: pilot1226

Funny, this is actually a very heated topic on the Subaru forums - much like these oil threads tend to get. There are people that insist that the CVT is truly lifetime fluid without need to ever replace (and some instances of people above 200k on original fluid), and some people that are replacing it every 60k with Amsoil, Valvoline, or the OEM CVTF fluid. I'm caught in the middle. I have no issues with the CVT performance wise or mechanically, aside from a TSB regarding shaking at low speeds (10-15) when the torque converter locks in, which isn't a big deal to me. Subaru did, however, change the design of the CVT in I believe 2013 or 2014 to use a different type of locking/engagement mechanism for the TC going forward. And the 6-cylinder engines and turbo engines use a "High Torque" version of the CVT. I was anticipating doing a Drain-and-Fill around 105k when I get my timing belt changed. This, however, will only remove about 50% of the original fluid, because the dealership can not and will not do a flush. Unfortunately, it's also a very expensive service, I was quoted above $350 for the CVT service - mostly because the OEM fluid is anywhere between $10-15 per quart, and I'd probably need about 6-7 quarts for the service. Then, there's labor involved with getting the CVT fluid to a specific temperature range, shifting a few times, and then checking fluid level (no dipstick). Fun times. I don't have the ability to measure the temperature because they use the Subaru Select Tool for that, and I've heard of some clever ideas to get around it, but it wouldn't exactly be "by the book".

Well, I've posted about the issues I've had with my 2013 Nissan Altima 3.5S's CVT. The death shudder (belt slippage, I suppose), rough TC lockup, etc. A few drain and refills of Amsoil CVT fluid fixed the issue and I traded that car in. The Subaru transmission is better made, but no fluid is lifetime. That's folly for those people to preach that. I simply measured the exact amount of cold fluid that came out, and then put that EXACT amount back in )Nissan trans is same way; no dipstick). Nissan charged about the same for a simple drain and fill. But that's [censored], because you can do it yourself if you take it slow. I'd explore Amsoil CVT fluid and doing a series of D&F's. Just get a fluid pan with level markings and make sure the vehicle is stone cold and the fluid you're putting in is the same temp. I did a few D&F's spaced 500-1000 miles apart. The original fluid at roughly 20k was FILTHY. The Nissan CVT fluid is supposed to look like bright green antifreeze. Instead, it was nearly black with a slight green tint....with lots of ferrous metals in it and sludge. Across 4 Drain and Fills on the Nissan Xtronic CVT, My fluid level was stated to be "perfect" by the dealer when it went in for a recall service (I had them check the level). They had no idea I changed the fluid and commented on how smooth the trans was around the parking lot. I think being a little adventurous may save you a ton of money.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the process. But, from what I've heard, if the CVT fails, Subaru has been providing assistance to replace the CVT at the dealership. We're talking around 9k for the transmission according to posts there, and they're covering about $7500 of it. I can deal with a $1500 replacement if it came up. 9k is almost exceeding the worth of the car, though. That being said, the Amsoil is also expensive. You're talking a series of D&F's at around $120 a piece, plus minor cost of a few gaskets for the CVT Drain, CVT Fill/Check that would be around $10 total each time. Subaru CVT is designed a little better than the Nissan ones I've heard, and there are lots of stories of people pushing 200k on the original fluid. That being said, there are also people claiming failures around 75k, so perhaps it's more a function or result of usability and users rather than an inherent/latent design flaw. Also, Subaru has millions of CVT's out now, I'd think if there was a latent flaw we'd have seen it by now - the cars first saw them in the US Market in 2010. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions and advice. I'll consider maybe doing a D&F the end of the summer and then a second one a few months later before winter. Hard to justify a preventative cost of $120-130 two times when there are no symptoms/problems and the manual says no need to replace.

 

[BufordTJustice]

Originally Posted By: pilot1226

Yeah, I'm familiar with the process. But, from what I've heard, if the CVT fails, Subaru has been providing assistance to replace the CVT at the dealership. We're talking around 9k for the transmission according to posts there, and they're covering about $7500 of it. I can deal with a $1500 replacement if it came up. 9k is almost exceeding the worth of the car, though. That being said, the Amsoil is also expensive. You're talking a series of D&F's at around $120 a piece, plus minor cost of a few gaskets for the CVT Drain, CVT Fill/Check that would be around $10 total each time. Subaru CVT is designed a little better than the Nissan ones I've heard, and there are lots of stories of people pushing 200k on the original fluid. That being said, there are also people claiming failures around 75k, so perhaps it's more a function or result of usability and users rather than an inherent/latent design flaw. Also, Subaru has millions of CVT's out now, I'd think if there was a latent flaw we'd have seen it by now - the cars first saw them in the US Market in 2010. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions and advice. I'll consider maybe doing a D&F the end of the summer and then a second one a few months later before winter. Hard to justify a preventative cost of $120-130 two times when there are no symptoms/problems and the manual says no need to replace.

With a current free shipping/25% off promotion, the $14/quart price is hardly a steep price to pay for 6 or 7 quarts. $84-$98 for the fluid at full price. Not sure how much they're getting out of the pan for Subies, but I only got 3 quarts per drain from the Nissan CVT. My 2011 Outback 3.6R is the last year of the 5EAT (thank gawd), so I have no experience with the Subaru CVTs. I agree that the Subaru CVT is a better and more rugged design than the Nissan CVT, but both are made under contract by JATCO. I just don't see Subaru finding out that you've changed the fluid if its done correctly. The Nissan CVT had a drain plug and a fill tube. If you have to drop the pan, that does suck, but the new fluid, with a renewed additive pack and fresh friction modifiers can only help the tranny. Nissan has millions of CVTs out now as well. The newer models' CVT (2013 and newer Xtronic) tends to be done with the factory fluid around 120k. Just done. Nissan back spec'd 60k changes for the CVT fluid and now dealers are pushing 30k drain and fills. I am confident that the chain-type Subaru unit (similar to the Maxima CVT) is more rugged, but I just don't see a benefit from changing a known good practice of keeping ATF fluid fresh simply because it's now a CVT. I do not, however, see these CVTs reaching the 250k+ miles that the 4EAT and 5EAT transmissions have reached when well cared for....at least not on a single factory fill of "lifetime fluid". I keep my cars for a long time. If you don't, then it's probably not worth the trouble.

 

[nthach]

Those EJ motors do have a knack for developing a leak at the oil separator plate - it's behind the flywheel and supposedly Subaru fixed this on the newer engines with a metal one. Oil pumps tend to weep on these, a reseal during a timing belt change with Loctite 518 or Toyota FIPG/Hondabond(applied in the THINNEST bead possible as not to have RTV break free into the oil galleries causing all sorts of bad) isn't a bad idea. These engines aren't picky on oil, when I worked on one I used Mobil Super HM 5W-30 and any good 5W30/10W-30 will work. IMO, filters are more important on Subaru engines - use either OEM or one with the proper bypass valve spec. Fram and most aftermarket filter will specify a PH3593A/PH6607/PH7317 sized filter for most Subies, but they bypass around 8-14PSI. The OEM filter and Wix's filters do have a higher bypass spec around 20PSI.

 

[Hadrien]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite

Mobil 1 and Subaru do not go together.

Why is that? I recently put Mobil 1 5W30 into my 2012 Subaru Outback with the EJ253 and it seems to be running smooth and better than ever. I remember reading on NASIOC or one of the other sites that there were shearing (sp?) issues with Mobil 1 and Subaru's with a turbo, but for the NA version wouldn't any 5W30 be good for 5-6K?

 

[BufordTJustice]

Originally Posted By: nthach

Those EJ motors do have a knack for developing a leak at the oil separator plate - it's behind the flywheel and supposedly Subaru fixed this on the newer engines with a metal one. Oil pumps tend to weep on these, a reseal during a timing belt change with Loctite 518 or Toyota FIPG/Hondabond(applied in the THINNEST bead possible as not to have RTV break free into the oil galleries causing all sorts of bad) isn't a bad idea. These engines aren't picky on oil, when I worked on one I used Mobil Super HM 5W-30 and any good 5W30/10W-30 will work. IMO, filters are more important on Subaru engines - use either OEM or one with the proper bypass valve spec. Fram and most aftermarket filter will specify a PH3593A/PH6607/PH7317 sized filter for most Subies, but they bypass around 8-14PSI. The OEM filter and Wix's filters do have a higher bypass spec around 20PSI.

I've spoken with Fram's engineering department about this regarding the Ultra 3593A...and they said that due to the lower-than-cellulose delta-P (pressure drop) across the media, that the Ultra has enough flow to work better than the OEM filters with the std Fram bypass settings on that filter. This was over the phone...and they def recommended the Ultra version. It was explained to me that the cellulose media on the OEM filter, and the increased pressure drop it creates, is what necessitates the higher bypass valve setting. They elaborated that reducing the pressure drop eliminates the need to have an elevated bypass valve pressure spec...because the filter isn't going into bypass even as often as an OEM Subaru filter. All of this stands to reason to me...and my oil looked WAY cleaner using a Fram Ultra than when using the current spec Subaru filter. Lifter tick when cold also was vastly reduced with the Fram. Sample size of two (99 Impreza 2.2 EJ and 2011 Outback 3.6 EZ).

 

[Random_0101]

Interesting. At any rate first oil change today with M1HM 5w30. Will run 5000 miles and see what happens (OEM filter) Does the wix or napa come with the crush washer for the bolt? (The OEM ones do... considering fumoto in future.)

 

[BufordTJustice]

Originally Posted By: pilot1226

Interesting. At any rate first oil change today with M1HM 5w30. Will run 5000 miles and see what happens (OEM filter) Does the wix or napa come with the crush washer for the bolt? (The OEM ones do... considering fumoto in future.)

The last WIX I ordered did not come with the washer.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted By: BufordTJustice

I've spoken with Fram's engineering department about this regarding the Ultra 3593A...and they said that due to the lower-than-cellulose delta-P (pressure drop) across the media, that the Ultra has enough flow to work better than the OEM filters with the std Fram bypass settings on that filter. This was over the phone...and they def recommended the Ultra version. It was explained to me that the cellulose media on the OEM filter, and the increased pressure drop it creates, is what necessitates the higher bypass valve setting. They elaborated that reducing the pressure drop eliminates the need to have an elevated bypass valve pressure spec...because the filter isn't going into bypass even as often as an OEM Subaru filter. .

Seems plausible - as FUs have wire-backed fleece media and that affords Fram to build them decently strong. But why do they still spec PH/TG versions of the 3593A/7317 filters, but they have a special PH-series filter for the turbo EJs?

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: BufordTJustice

You're calculating the fluidic drag caused by the hydrodynamic main bearings. You have not factored in the reduced friction in the valvetrain from the better/thicker oil film on the cams, lifters, etc. Also, better ring sealing around the pistons.

It was all, on average, factored in. Also, "ring sealing" is not the issue here.

Originally Posted By: BufordTJustice

I think the difference isn't there in the real world.

What you think differs from many real-world tests and engineering studies. Thicker oil has been proven many, many times to raise fuel consumption, and for most engines its about a ~1.5% increase per visc grade you go up. This test got 2% increase in trucks: http://papers.sae.org/2017-01-0888/ This one says about 1.5% fuel savings: http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30208/fuel-economy-oils This one says 1.6%: http://fleetowner.com/management/news/pouring-in-fuel-economy-1101 This one averages about 1.5% improvement: https://priuschat.com/attachments/fuel-efficient-motor-oil-technical-article-pdf.11772/ Here is a 0w20 to 0w30 comparison that was about 1%: http://s05.static-shell.com/content/dam/...-efficiency.pdf Lots more.... The 1.5% is an average benefit, typical, and it does depend on a variety of factors. The spread is usually 0.5% to 3% better MPG. A power increase also occurs as you decrease visc, same as the MPG benefit. Racers know this and often qualify on low-visc oil.

 

[PimTac]

There is probably a difference but the right foot will have more determination on fuel economy than the oil.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: PimTac

There is probably a difference but the right foot will have more determination on fuel economy than the oil.

Great point. If using a thicker oil, then the driver can commit to driving more docile to make up the difference in MPG. It can be done. Yet most of us don't want to change our driving style based on whats in the sump.....

 

[Random_0101]

Cool. I'm very happy with the oil change, and we'll see what the next 5000 miles brings on M1HM 5w30 with the stock filter. Thanks for your input.

 

[BufordTJustice]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies

Originally Posted By: BufordTJustice

You're calculating the fluidic drag caused by the hydrodynamic main bearings. You have not factored in the reduced friction in the valvetrain from the better/thicker oil film on the cams, lifters, etc. Also, better ring sealing around the pistons.

It was all, on average, factored in. Also, "ring sealing" is not the issue here.

Originally Posted By: BufordTJustice

I think the difference isn't there in the real world.

What you think differs from many real-world tests and engineering studies. Thicker oil has been proven many, many times to raise fuel consumption, and for most engines its about a ~1.5% increase per visc grade you go up. This test got 2% increase in trucks: http://papers.sae.org/2017-01-0888/ This one says about 1.5% fuel savings: http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30208/fuel-economy-oils This one says 1.6%: http://fleetowner.com/management/news/pouring-in-fuel-economy-1101 This one averages about 1.5% improvement: https://priuschat.com/attachments/fuel-efficient-motor-oil-technical-article-pdf.11772/ Here is a 0w20 to 0w30 comparison that was about 1%: http://s05.static-shell.com/content/dam/...-efficiency.pdf Lots more.... The 1.5% is an average benefit, typical, and it does depend on a variety of factors. The spread is usually 0.5% to 3% better MPG. A power increase also occurs as you decrease visc, same as the MPG benefit. Racers know this and often qualify on low-visc oil.

I've reviewed all of them. Nobody is recommending jumping two grades, and the percentage increases in FE you've stated are virtually all based on going from a non friction modified Xw-20 to an Xw-40 oil, or from a dino 10/15w-40 to a 5w-30 syn oil. Going from an HTHS of close to 4 to one at 2.9 or less is more than a single grade jump. I mean, comparign the KV100 specs for 15w-40 (often exceeding 15), 10w-40 (in the mid/high 14's), and then a 5w-30 (in the 10's) is more than a single grade jump. Moreover, when friction modifiers come into play, the difference between adjacent grades (especially 5w-30 and 0w-40) shrinks to well under a single percent. Not 1.5% as you suggest. From the ML article: "Keep in mind that newer engines have tighter tolerances and better surface finishes. By using these lower viscosity oils with a cleaner engine design, you can optimize fuel economy. On older vehicles where the recommendation is a 5W30 or 10W30 oil, it would not be advised to switch to a lower viscosity oil. By decreasing the viscosity, you have the potential of added wear generation. With increased wear, you can expect engine life to decrease and performance to degrade. Once performance starts to fall off, your fuel mileage will likely decrease as well." Lastly, it's quite clear that none of these tests for gasoline engines bear in consideration real world observations of engine longevity. One test is comparing running 5w-20 oil in a Porsche 911 (which specs at least 0w-40). How many minutes does that 911 run in the real world on 5w-20 in the summer before it seizes? Next, we have a BMW M5 (unknown vintage) that is compared using 5w-20, 0w-40, and 15w-40. Again, how many minutes does that BMW engine last in the real world during summer before it fails (consider that BMW has never spec'd Xw-20 oil for any M5 engine, EVER)? Then we get into what causes friction in an engine: So, in areas where viscosity is not necessarily the primary factor in engine friction, and where higher vis can actually reduce frictional losses (i.e. the valvetrain), the differences are not as stark. I'm just not seeing a meaningful statistical difference that even matches what different batches of gasoline can introduce, or with moisture instrusion into a gas station's storage tank, or with a mildly loaded air filter. I see little to lose, and much to gain by moving up in viscosity for the EJ. Many thousands of users have found the same. Also, it seems that papers which advocate for the use of low viscosity oil don't comprehend the observed inadequacies of using thin oils in applications which call for thick oil....so the act of substituting thin oil in engines which were not designed for it is a non sequitur. Most of the cited studies are also rather old, with much having changed in the last ten to fifteen years of oil additive and basestock technology. Further, these gasoline studies are speaking directly to altering engine designs to take advantage of thinner oils with newer (and many not-yet-developed additive packages), and not to substituting lower vis oils into the crankcase of vehicles which were designed for higher vis products. Racers using low vis oil is a poor analogy, as they rebuild engines on the reg, with sponsorships to boot. What race engine goes over 200 hours between rebuilds? I digress. Nobody is sponsoring my car payment, or maintenance.

 

[bluesubie]

IMO, unless are exceeding 7,500 mile intervlals there is no advantage of running synthetic in an naturally aspirated EJ. You'll be fine with any conventional 5W30 from Wal Mart.