Good read on 0w20 from Honda

[4ever4d]

Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Trav has the most convincing logic in this thread. He correctly points out that what he aims for is "optimal" protection, not just the "good enough" under specific operating conditions.

I agree that CAFE is basically designed for "good enough". And in the USA it might be passable if you don't make huge demands on your car, or do not have a performance or turbo charged engine.

However, even though I live in the USA, I would like to have the "CHOICE" of using oils which offer OPTIMAL protection as well and still keep my factory warranty in effect, and that means US consumers need the choices like they used to have before CAFE.

Trav, I really enjoy your posts because they are logical, well thought out, and use data to back up your position.


No insult intended but even given a broad range of choices how do we know for sure what is optimal. The majority of the motoring public has no idea of what oil specs even mean the few here are probably the only group who cares. As cars and trucks for that matter are becoming less maintainence oriented so are the boundaries for what they need, this is why i personally feel manufacturers are taking away or dumbing down owner maintainence. As they are as well taking away driver interaction with the vehicle itself. The point i am trying to make with no offense to anyone because i see good points in everything in this and other similar threads is that the majority of car buyers could care less about what is in their cars and as we know the majority is what needs to be pleased for optimal sales not optimal longevity.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Found this:

Quote:
Here is a quote from the great Coyote engine write-up from Mustang & Fast Fords:

Consideration was given to an external oil cooler, but ultimately it was decided not to penalize all Coyote buyers for the occasional antics of a miniscule fraction of owners. Oil temperature rises precipitously when the Coyote is revved more than 4,500 rpm for extended periods, and then an external oil-to-air cooler is vital. But those conditions can only be reached on a road-racing track, so the expensive cooler was ditched and engine management strategies were used to protect the engine during hot idles. However, the mounting area for the cooler was "protected" during the 2011 Mustang's development. That makes it easier for the open-trackers among us to fit a cooler (highly recommended by Coyote engine designers), and tells you something about Ford's intentions for special editions of the Coyote-powered Mustangs.

And don't worry about the occasional open-track without an oil cooler. The engineers say the oil cools quickly as soon as you take your foot out of it, and the engine management will limit the torque output if the oil gets too hot.




Ed


hahahaha...so rather than penalising the small percent of users who want to use the outer envelope of the the engine that they purchased and therefore own, Ford will penalise them by not only making them use an oil that is sub-optimal so that they can meet the requirement that the oil that is CAFE tested, but take that performance off them, as the oil has inadequate "headroom" to utilise the engine to it's potential.

 

[Oil Changer]

Not only did the engine not blow, I had zero engine issues. This tells me that the dino 5W-20 did it's job well under the severe conditions I subjected them to. If I have to do a teardown to determine wear, I'm comfortable the 5W-20 did it's job well.

I was in the military a looonnnggg time. I traveled alot.

I lived just north of San Diego and dragged my boat to Lake Mojave every chance I could in the summer. This puts me a stones throw from Death Valley, but I did not drive through the heart of Death Valley so my experince does not count. Yea, okay.

And when I drove through places like Montana in the winter when it was -20F (left home it was 70F) doesn't count because it wasn't -80F in Alaska? Spare me. You're kidding right?

Yes, I took different ways to and from SoCal to Michigan. Why take the same roads? Get out and see the country... All on 5W-20. No engine problems.

So the new buzz word is "optimal". So I'm supposed to leave SoCal in the winter at ~70F with 0W-40, get to Idaho pull over change my oil to 0W-20, enjoy my stay in Michigan, take the southern route back but pull over in Arkansas and change back to 0W-40? What a joke! Especially knowing through experience that 5W-20 works just fine.

Yea. I was 20 miles SE of Death Valley not downtown Death Valley on the hottest day on record so my experience does not count even though th temperature was the same? Yea. It was only -20F and not -80F in Montana so that don't count either, right?

I bet I've come closer to meeting your critera for extreme driving more than you ever have. Quit while I'm ahead. At least you acknowledge I'm winning the argument.

Originally Posted By: Trav
So the engine didn't blow so what does that prove?
I wouldn't expect it to but there is no way you can say how much wear or not took place without a tear down.

I have no problem reading. Your trips seem a bit too convenient and fit Demarpaints scenario too perfectly but if you said you did it ok.
So now it was in the lower 48 in winter. You didn't drive this vehicle in Death Valley in the summer and northern Alaska in the winter on 20w did you.
Quote:
Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota (all of which could be argued have harsher winter climes than Alaska)

You want to rethink that?
Northern Alaska is the coldest place in the US.
Quote:
Actually, the record for Alaska (and the entire U.S. for that matter) was set in 1971 at Prospect Creek in the northern interior: a bone-chilling -80°F! When compared to high readings near 90°, Alaska's temperature range is an astonishing 170°.


you need to get your fact straight.
There was no way you subjected that oil to the conditions i described and i can prove it.
Quit while your ahead.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Trav has the most convincing logic in this thread. He correctly points out that what he aims for is "optimal" protection, not just the "good enough" under specific operating conditions.

I agree that CAFE is basically designed for "good enough". And in the USA it might be passable if you don't make huge demands on your car, or do not have a performance or turbo charged engine.

However, even though I live in the USA, I would like to have the "CHOICE" of using oils which offer OPTIMAL protection as well and still keep my factory warranty in effect, and that means US consumers need the choices like they used to have before CAFE.

Trav, I really enjoy your posts because they are logical, well thought out, and use data to back up your position.



I think Trav comes off as harsh sometimes, but I find myself more in agreement with him then not the vast majority of the time.

Keep in mind, companies like Ford are now ensuring through oil temperature monitoring that you cannot exceed the design parameters of an engine operating on a 20-weight oil. A quick look at the Mustang GT and SteveSRT8's observations of one going into oil temp induced thermal limp mode at the track is proof enough of that.

What this points out to me is that Ford is willing to concede that for all operating conditions the car might see, that 5w20 may in fact NOT be optimal. So they prevent you from operating the car outside of the safe operating range of the lubricant by employing these mechanisms within the ECM.

On the other hand, with the BOSS 302, which is designed to be tracked, they take a different approach, spec'ing 5w50 for a VERY similar engine in a very similar car.

One is limited production, the other is not.......

It would be interesting to compare the thermal shut-down parameters between the two because I would bet that they are significantly different.


Maybe Ford is playing a numbers game? They feel the vast majority of owners will not have a problem using the thinner oil, those who do will hopefully have the warranty to back them up. Maybe their attitude is getting better fuel economy and getting CAFE points with a slight decrease in engine life is their main concern. CAFE points = big $$$$. Maybe just maybe some of us would not want to be that small percent having an engine problem, and want maximum engine life. Maybe some of us are actually capable of matching oil to driving conditions, etc. and feel one size fits all might be good in some cases but not all. You have experts like Trav, Ed Hackett, Shannow and a few others who seem to agree. Looks like we're in agreement with them too. JMO

 

[Jim Allen]

It's a no brainer. "Optimal viscosity" is going to vary within narrow parameterw according to operational conditions and environment. "Adequate viscosity" is going to be a much wider range. If you dig past the bovine scatology, fragile egos being propped up with bluster and a desperate need to be "right," everyone seems to agree on those things. Why is it necessary to go on and on trading insults over this?

 

[Trav]

The question was an extreme hypothetical using two extremes that could be theoretically encountered if you took 6 mo to drive to Alaska. Highly unlikely isn't it?
The 20w would not be a good choice in the hottest place in the US and 40w wouldn't be good in the coldest. Its that simple.

Stop with the Marlin Perkin wild kingdom stories, nobody cares about your long military career either it adds nothing of value to the thread.

On the other hand 70f is not out of range for the 20w (unless you used the Toyota oil that is only good for 60f in the Shannow graph) and neither is -20f. I even ran my expedition at those temps on 20w.

In other parts of the world 5w30 0w30 seems to be the oil of choice in all but the hottest or coldest climates.
Funny when someone poses the question if a 0w30 or 5w30 in the US is closer to fitting the climate in many places than 20w the fan club goes bonkers.

Stop answering hypothetical questions with this adventure stuff. Your bordering on being a troll.
So you drove a truck from point a to point b on this oil and it didn't have any problems. So what does that prove? Nothing.
Quote:
I bet I've come closer to meeting your critera for extreme driving more than you ever have.

Now how do you know that? Does it matter? Mind reading again?

 

[Zaedock]

I miss BuickGN. Great guy with personal experience to back up his opinion. Trav is the same way and I think OVERK1LL's post is spot on.

I don't take comfort in knowing that engine management parameters could possibly change to help maintain proper oil viscosity under certain conditions. That doesn't say "one size fits all" to me, which has been beaten into our manuals here in the US.

 

[Vikas]

The funniest part is that most of the spirited contributors here would not *ever* own a Honda or be seen in driving one It is all academic to them. Why does this discussion now resembling the contest to find who has the longest urinary throw?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Found this:

Quote:
Here is a quote from the great Coyote engine write-up from Mustang & Fast Fords:

Consideration was given to an external oil cooler, but ultimately it was decided not to penalize all Coyote buyers for the occasional antics of a miniscule fraction of owners. Oil temperature rises precipitously when the Coyote is revved more than 4,500 rpm for extended periods, and then an external oil-to-air cooler is vital. But those conditions can only be reached on a road-racing track, so the expensive cooler was ditched and engine management strategies were used to protect the engine during hot idles. However, the mounting area for the cooler was "protected" during the 2011 Mustang's development. That makes it easier for the open-trackers among us to fit a cooler (highly recommended by Coyote engine designers), and tells you something about Ford's intentions for special editions of the Coyote-powered Mustangs.

And don't worry about the occasional open-track without an oil cooler. The engineers say the oil cools quickly as soon as you take your foot out of it, and the engine management will limit the torque output if the oil gets too hot.




Ed


Thank you Ed! That's what I was looking for. The ECM pulling power based on oil temperature

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bubbajoe_2112
Hmmm, still confused:

Coolant Limp Mode mentioned


The car certainly has more than one limp mode mechanism in play. It wouldn't make sense for it to only track coolant or oil temperature, it tracks both (and of course a multitude of other things) and if either gets outside the safe operating parameters Ford has defined, measures are taken to reel them back in through a limp mode/power limiting strategy.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
It's a no brainer. "Optimal viscosity" is going to vary within narrow parameterw according to operational conditions and environment. "Adequate viscosity" is going to be a much wider range. If you dig past the bovine scatology, fragile egos being propped up with bluster and a desperate need to be "right," everyone seems to agree on those things. Why is it necessary to go on and on trading insults over this?


BINGO Jim!!

The question Frank and Trav seem to be asking is why elsewhere in the world are people given the option of choosing the optimal viscosity for the operating conditions as layed out in the owners manual whilst in North America we are now only given the choice of a single "adequate" viscosity, the reasoning for which many seem to chalk up to CAFE.

 

[cchase]

This is turning into quite the hot button issue on here the past few days. I've really been enjoying reading the several threads.

Somehow I think the point of agreement is closer for both sides than either realize. It's getting lost because both sides are trying to prove each other wrong, instead of listening to the other side.

Personally, I think Shannow has the most logical view. This is all an issue of headroom. If you have a 200 hp car, you may not use more than 100 hp in regular driving. If you never use all that power, you are essentially wasting energy. This probably covers 95% of all road users. And yet, we don't see many 100 hp cars out there today, we see cars with essentially HUGE headroom (300 hp grocery getters). So maybe the question is, why do we want so much engine headroom but so little oil headroom?

 

[Trav]

I sure would drive one and be seen in one. Whats the name of it the NSX.

 

[bubbajoe_2112]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Found this:

Quote:
Here is a quote from the great Coyote engine write-up from Mustang & Fast Fords:

Consideration was given to an external oil cooler, but ultimately it was decided not to penalize all Coyote buyers for the occasional antics of a miniscule fraction of owners. Oil temperature rises precipitously when the Coyote is revved more than 4,500 rpm for extended periods, and then an external oil-to-air cooler is vital. But those conditions can only be reached on a road-racing track, so the expensive cooler was ditched and engine management strategies were used to protect the engine during hot idles. However, the mounting area for the cooler was "protected" during the 2011 Mustang's development. That makes it easier for the open-trackers among us to fit a cooler (highly recommended by Coyote engine designers), and tells you something about Ford's intentions for special editions of the Coyote-powered Mustangs.

And don't worry about the occasional open-track without an oil cooler. The engineers say the oil cools quickly as soon as you take your foot out of it, and the engine management will limit the torque output if the oil gets too hot.




Ed


Thank you Ed! That's what I was looking for. The ECM pulling power based on oil temperature

And it would appear the hot oil issues only happen in` extreme use (e.g. tracking) with that engine. I don't think in any way that 0W20 is a limiting factor for normal use in that engine...

 

[martinq]

No fluid is going to compensate for insufficient temperature control whether it's for steering, transmission, engine or diff. Imagine paying $70 a bottle for tranny fluid and then getting stranded at the track because your $20k transmission needs to be replaced.

This happened because Nissan did not implement effective cooling of the GT-R transmission and/or limp-mode to save the day.

Is the fluid at fault? I certainly don't think so, not by reviewing the fluid temperatures.

Is Honda's (and others) 0w20 and excellent fluid? Yes, I believe so and it'll serve the market very well. There is no need to 'fix' it with 0w40. If your oil is getting too hot, you need cooling not a sub-optimal fluid.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: edhackett
Found this:

Quote:
Here is a quote from the great Coyote engine write-up from Mustang & Fast Fords:

Consideration was given to an external oil cooler, but ultimately it was decided not to penalize all Coyote buyers for the occasional antics of a miniscule fraction of owners. Oil temperature rises precipitously when the Coyote is revved more than 4,500 rpm for extended periods, and then an external oil-to-air cooler is vital. But those conditions can only be reached on a road-racing track, so the expensive cooler was ditched and engine management strategies were used to protect the engine during hot idles. However, the mounting area for the cooler was "protected" during the 2011 Mustang's development. That makes it easier for the open-trackers among us to fit a cooler (highly recommended by Coyote engine designers), and tells you something about Ford's intentions for special editions of the Coyote-powered Mustangs.

And don't worry about the occasional open-track without an oil cooler. The engineers say the oil cools quickly as soon as you take your foot out of it, and the engine management will limit the torque output if the oil gets too hot.




Ed


hahahaha...so rather than penalising the small percent of users who want to use the outer envelope of the the engine that they purchased and therefore own, Ford will penalise them by not only making them use an oil that is sub-optimal so that they can meet the requirement that the oil that is CAFE tested, but take that performance off them, as the oil has inadequate "headroom" to utilise the engine to it's potential.

But that is not what Ford has done.
A spec' 20wt oil is certainly more optimal for all but track use than using a heavier oil grade with more "headroom". With the oil cooler a heavier oil grade is not required or desired.
If Ford deserves any criticism, it's for not including the "optional" oil cooler as standard equipment.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
It's a no brainer. "Optimal viscosity" is going to vary within narrow parameterw according to operational conditions and environment. "Adequate viscosity" is going to be a much wider range. If you dig past the bovine scatology, fragile egos being propped up with bluster and a desperate need to be "right," everyone seems to agree on those things. Why is it necessary to go on and on trading insults over this?


+1

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

But that is not what Ford has done.
A spec' 20wt oil is certainly more optimal for all but track use than using a heavier oil grade with more "headroom". With the oil cooler a heavier oil grade is not required or desired.
If Ford deserves any criticism, it's for not including the "optional" oil cooler as standard equipment.


The Boss 302 has the oil cooler as standard equipment and requires 5W-50. Apparently the oil cooler by itself is not enough.

Ed

 

[KrisZ]

Considering that most Mustangs are automatics and are used as grocery getters, I'm not surprised that Ford ditched the cooler and recommended 5w20. These cars probably don't see more than 2.5-3k RPM in everyday driving and cruise at about 2k RPM on the highway. There is nothing there to really heat up the oil for MOST users.

These cars see the same duty cycle as Camrys, Accords and Malibus so they spec the oil to match that. Manufacturers have long figured out the in N/A people don't buy a car or SUV to suit their needs, but to suit their egos. So 5w20 or 0w20 can be suitable in a 5,000lb SUV, a "sports car" like a mustang or an econo box like Civic or Corolla because most of the time these cars will be hauling one person with a lunch box that is stuck in traffic.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM

But that is not what Ford has done.
A spec' 20wt oil is certainly more optimal for all but track use than using a heavier oil grade with more "headroom". With the oil cooler a heavier oil grade is not required or desired.
If Ford deserves any criticism, it's for not including the "optional" oil cooler as standard equipment.


The Boss 302 has the oil cooler as standard equipment and requires 5W-50. Apparently the oil cooler by itself is not enough.
Ed

Was the Ford engineer referring to the (650 hp?) Boss 302? No.
And it would be more accurate to say that car is spec'd for the Motorcraft 5W-50 which is likely no heavier than a shear stable A3 30wt in service.
What is the hp range for the Coyote family of engines?