German Castrol 0w-30: 1 month impression.

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by Drew99GT:
Wouldn't larger tires give you better economy? Lower rpms at same mph?

Yes, but also remember that larger tires slow down the speedo and odometer, so if he's 5% off on that, then his odometer will show 100 miles when he's really gone 105. So if he doesn't factor this into his equation when figuring out his MPG, then it will show a falsely lower number.
 
We have three Gm cars (LS1/LT1) and a Ford with the 4.6 SOHC. I think these engines like entirely different types of oil. The LT/LS engines like their oil a little on the thicker side of 30Wt. My Ford 4.6 likes thin oil much better. It runs smoother and does not have the morning clatter anymore since I switched to Amsoil S2000 0W-30. Feels also more powerful, but that may just be placebo.
I am convinced after trying about ten different oils and viscosities, including Mobil 1 (thin!) that Amsoil S2000 0W-30 is one of the best matched oils for this engine.

quote:

Originally posted by StratGT:
Hey guys:
When I first installed the Castrol 0W-30 as a replacement for my Ford 5W-20 I immediately noticed a quieter running engine. I also replaced the K&N filter with the original Ford Motocraft air filter. The GC poured noticeable thicker than the Ford 0W-20.

Here's a 1 month conclusion: The car feels like its lost some hp. By the way, my car is a 2000 Ford Mustang GT so each HP counts. I'm making 60 miles per tank less with this new setup. This is with 5 different gas fillups. Is it the oil or the air filter? Cause I'm a little pissed about spending so much extra for Castrol 0W-30 and a K&N oil filter.

Any advise or comments,
Thanx.


 
Ford actually put a TSB out in 1998 (or whenwever they went to 5W-20) that immediately began recommending 5W-20 for all 4.6 and 5.4 SOHC engines retroactively back to model year 1994. The change to this thinner oil was not an engine design change, just a recommendation change!

quote:

Originally posted by Whimsey:
That's intersting because in 2000 Ford was still recommending 5W-30 for their engines. Maybe the newer Ford engines are "tight" and work better with a "light" 30 or even better, a 20 weight oil. Also was your K&N just the filter element or the FIPK set-up? If it was just the element you most likely could not tell a power difference between that and the Motorcraft paper element.

Whimsey




[ December 05, 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Alex D ]
 
Well, I have about 150 miles on my GC batch and there doesn't seem to be a difference in HP. The engine sounds aweful just as it did before and starts are no different, although it hasn't been that cold here in SA, TX. Mileage is at least the same as it was before, but oil pressure "seems" a hair lower....literally.
We'll see how it does on this engine when analyzed.
Rick
 
quote:

Originally posted by Patman:

quote:

Originally posted by Drew99GT:
Wouldn't larger tires give you better economy? Lower rpms at same mph?

Yes, but also remember that larger tires slow down the speedo and odometer, so if he's 5% off on that, then his odometer will show 100 miles when he's really gone 105. So if he doesn't factor this into his equation when figuring out his MPG, then it will show a falsely lower number.


There are a few things going on here. As Patman mentioned, you have to correct for the size differences in any calculations.

There's an optimum gear ratio/tire size for a given vehicle and straying from that will reduce mileage. If it didn't we'd all be running 1100 RPM at 70mph in top gear. Toyota chose wisely with the stock tire size.

The taller tires also raise the truck about 1.5 inches and they have a much more aggresive off road type tread pattern. These suckers on the new wheels are heavy too. As TS says, it matters.

Given all the possible reasons for the mileage differences I've seen recently, the GC may have actually increased my real MPG. Not likely I don't think, but possible.

We've also ignored the recent change to winter blend oxygenated fuel that happens about this time every year. That stuff isn't known for mileage...

[ December 05, 2003, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: jsharp ]
 
If people claim they can feel a positive change in the "butt-dyno" when using GC and it is given wide credence on this board, why don't we give StratGT's reported negative change the same respect? Doesn't make sense to me. All the GC glorifiers out there need to come back down to earth. This stuff may be the best oil for some applications and may not the best for others. To encourage people to stick with what appears to be a less than desirable combination is counter to what I thought this board stands for.

Dump the GC and go back to M1.
 
Just a thought about the colder weather... I don't know about your Mustang, but my Integra will rev to 2000K at idle when first started. It will hold this rev level until it starts warming up; then the revs will slowly drop to 'normal' idle. I'm the type who fires it up, and drives. I suppose if you're the type to fire it up, and let it sit, that could affect your mileage.

I liked jsharp's thought about re-programming the ECU. But then I got to thinking it would probably straighten itself out withing five (5) fill ups.

Honestly, I wouldn't blame the oil... When you change multiple items at the same time, it's hard to pin a cause down to one culprit. Can you check to see if it's stored any codes? Like someone else said, maybe you've got a sensor going bad? I don't know a lot about the newer Mustangs, but speaking from a Honda point of view, when certain codes are stored, the ECU will go into 'Limp' mode... (so you can limp it to a garage I suppose). Basically it retards your timing, richens the mix, and does some other stuff. Just a thought. Good luck with it, eh!!
 
losing tons of HP? idle down 300? sounds impossible from an oil, thats the most outrageous thing i have heard today.
 
You made the error of not telling us how many miles were on the car!

When you switch to a higher viscosity oil, the car may run like crap until it cleans the garbage out from the urine-thin 20 weight you were running because that's what Ford (who wants you to buy the next gen. Mustang) tells you to use.

So, give the oil some time (~10k mi. wouldn't be unrealistic) and do a couple of changes...3-4 before making a final decision.

All the 20 weight does is "mask" the hp to be evenatually lost from build-up and/or wear. In a couple years, you'll be needing that auto-rx stuff to re-achieve this lost hp.

Patman's comments were spot on. However, he did an auto-rx treatment first! This is the quick way to achieve the above. Just as I have found, you should be getting an increase in the low end as a trade-off. Similar to the K&N which increased high end while removing the low. Take it out as well.
 
I really doubt the oil could make that much difference. When you start swapping air filters it's best to pull the ECU fuse or dicconect the battery for a while to allow the engine controller to "unlearn" it's previous control parameters and "relearn" the optimum ones for the new intake setup. Then give it a few 100 miles after the reset to get things dialed in...
 
quote:

After 1 month of driving and 5 tanks full of gas, my milage went from 400kms (250 miles) per tank to 275kms or 172 miles per tank

shocked.gif
shocked.gif
confused.gif


That is too big a change to blame the oil, or the air filter, or the weather...

Something is wrong mechanically...
frown.gif
 
Ok guys you've given me more to think about and its time I re-evauate my situation regarding GC 0w-30 oil.

1.) When I changed my oil, I was wwearing a t-shirt and a few days later the temperature dropped 20 to 30 degrees. That may be a factor.

2.) Since the oil change, I'm now using the front window defroster everywhere I go and I know the Mustang has the A/C compressor activated when this function is used. This may also be a big factor determing my poor milage.

Now that my K&N filter is properly re-oiled, I may re-install it. OR Should I stick to my original intention of a 8000km interval with GC and the stock Ford air filter plus a OA.

Just as a fact though....The car is slightly slower with the GC oil. Thats not a myth from my part. AND The oil poured thicker or heavier than Quaker State 5w-30 oil that I replaced in my wifes car 20 minutes earlier. I'm not kidding, I could see the difference in thickness.

Patman: They now sell Quaker State 5w-20 at CDN Tire for $3.77 a litre vs $2.67 a litre for the 5w-30. What a rip off!!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top