Good read on 0w20 from Honda

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow


It's been posted, and as a master of Google, you can probably find it, that CAFE requires the manufacturer to take steps to ensure that the owners use the oil that the vehicle was CAFE certified to.

To certify to a 20, then to list 30 and 40 in the manual would not be taking those steps.


The presentation posted by the OP hints that Honda cars were filled at factory with low viscosity oils while they recommended 5W20 or 5W30 in USA in 2000s. Did they cheat EPA in the process?

page 8:
Quote:
Honda has used 0W-20 as factory- and service-fill oil in various vehicles for over 10 years. These vehicles were certified with higher viscosity grades, due to the lack of 0W-20 oils in the US market
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Limp home is supposed to be the failsafe when things go unpredictable out of range, sensors fail, systems fail, or sensors tell the computer that systems fail.

Protecting from overheated fluids is a legitimate fail-safe condition.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Ford have built an engine, and have advertised it's performance parameters, including a power output and equipment level, and an implied level of performance to their buyers. Their buyers use that engine, within the parameters that the engine can deliver, haven't chipped it, cammed it...it's exactly how it came out of the factory...and they withdraw the power at an oil temperature.

Perhaps automotive mfgs should be require to post the power output at a specific ambient temperature and for a set number of minutes or duty cycle.

eg. 420 hp @ 6200rpm @ 20C, 20% duty cycle

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Their retracting power in a limp home mode implies that as per Caterham's assertion, 99% don't need that performance level

I don't think it has anything to do with need, they simply don't use it or can't access it. I'm sure the number is much higher than 99%. The equipment works as specified and a certain failure rate is always acceptable in mfging.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
They've either pushed the engine too far for it's basic lubrication system, or underdesigned the lubrication system for the performance available.

It's the cooling system that's been underdesigned to meet that small fraction of a percent of operating conditions. The lubrication system seems to be functioning OK.
 
1) While I don't take offense (I'm hard to offend) I don't find it stupid, at all. The assertion is that Ford is producing a car that is hamstrung by CAFE...yet in real world terms there don't seem to be many/any instances of the car actually shutting down. Meanwhile, this seems like a reasonably frequent occurrence in some other high performance cars...ones which spec thicker oils. So, neither oil spec (nor CAFE) seem to be a big factor in cars shutting down at the track (some of which are also stock and unchipped). What's stupid about that?

2) I'll ask again, could someone provide a link in the EPA regs? I'm not saying it's not the case, I'd just to know. I did Google it, and I even looked on the EPA's website under the test protocol. Obviously, my Google skills have failed me. I'm genuinely curious as to the exact methodology.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
1) While I don't take offense (I'm hard to offend) I don't find it stupid, at all. The assertion is that Ford is producing a car that is hamstrung by CAFE...yet in real world terms there don't seem to be many/any instances of the car actually shutting down. Meanwhile, this seems like a reasonably frequent occurrence in some other high performance cars...ones which spec thicker oils. So, neither oil spec (nor CAFE) seem to be a big factor in cars shutting down at the track. What's stupid about that?

2) I'll ask again, could someone provide a link in the EPA regs? I'm not saying it's not the case, I'd just to know. I did Google it, and I even looked on the EPA's website under the test protocol. Obviously, my Google skills have failed me. I'm genuinely curious as to the exact methodology.


I bet you there are fewer cases yet of the BOSS 302 shutting down at the track, since it has an oil cooler, 5w50 in the sump and likely a higher thermal threshold
wink.gif


Maybe Ford has just better engineered Coyote than the other marques you speak of
21.gif
Essentially Ford's version of "crippled by oil temp" is still a few steps above what is required for other cars, regardless of spec'd viscosity, to reach that critical point of thermal shutdown.

I think it speaks more to Ford's capabilities to engineer an engine with this sort of power density than it does to "well others have thermal shutdown issues too". Since I specifically didn't mention other makes and am focusing solely on the differences between the volume production Mustang GT and the limited production BOSS 302.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Lets take a hypothetical 3 Mustangs with the engine and oil in question and disable the system that protects it when things "go bad."


Well, first off--since shutdown based on oil temps at the track seem to be pretty rare, I'm wondering just how much difference there would be (and yes, there would obviously be a difference). Question though; why make up a hypothetical for one manufacturer?

Here's another: Have a Ford and a couple of other performance cars which spec thicker oil out at the track. Remove any engine management fail-safes and have them run on their spec'd oils. See who has the most engine failures.

Ford isn't the only company shutting its engines down when they're outside of certain operating parameters. Why should they and they alone be forces to removed these fail-safes, even in a hypothetical question? Answer: to support a certain position.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


I bet you there are fewer cases yet of the BOSS 302 shutting down at the track, since it has an oil cooler, 5w50 in the sump and likely a higher thermal threshold
wink.gif



Well, that certainly makes intuitive sense. The added viscosity and oil cooler seem disproportionate to the small bump in HP. That said, I still think it's reasonable to look past any supposed reasons for the spec and look at the results and ask "how much is this really happening"?

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Maybe Ford has just better engineered Coyote than the other marques you speak of
21.gif
Essentially Ford's version of "crippled by oil temp" is still a few steps above what is required for other cars, regardless of spec'd viscosity, to reach that critical point of thermal shutdown.

I think it speaks more to Ford's capabilities to engineer an engine with this sort of power density than it does to "well others have thermal shutdown issues too". Since I specifically didn't mention other makes and am focusing solely on the differences between the volume production Mustang GT and the limited production BOSS 302.


I think you're probably right. Things like tiny sumps in performance cars certainly make me scratch my head more than spec'ing a 20W oil. At the end of the day, they've chosen to "work around" a 20W spec, and I'll certainly acknowledge that--but ALL volume-sold performance cars make concessions in various areas.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Quote:
, engineering gods, hands not tied by CAFE, are not only spec'ing the same narrow range of viscosity in every country in the world, but they are recommending one particular oil for 1.5L to 6.5L engines in every country in the world.

Looks like a choice to me. How many more would you like?
No facts? No problem! You can make them up as needed.

Quote:
MERCEDES-BENZ (US)
Modell
C230 (C Series)
Motor
B
Jahr
2006-2006
1. Wahl Mobil 1 New Life 0W-40
2. Wahl Mobil SHC Formula MB 5W-30


Hah.

Dear dear Trav. I went to the Mobil site beforehand. I saw this and still wrote what I wrote. This "choice" at Mobil's site has nothing to do with my point! You've not read or understood what I wrote!

"They" refers to Mercedes not Mobil. I said Mercedes recommends Mobil 1 0w40 everywhere. In every country for small engines, for medium engines, for AMG 6.5L engines on Black Series CLK's, SL's. They don't qualify that statement. They (Mercedes) are saying it is the best oil in every circumstance.

This is not a 40 weight vs 20 weight argument. It is not about headroom. Headroom is a different discussion. It is a question that how can an oil, with a specific viscosity, be optimal everywhere for so many engines? This was a fundamental principle that you've been arguing.

Now onto your second point, which I knew you would make. That there is a choice between a 30 weight and a 40 weight. I know that you can have 30 weight or 40 weight to meet the Mercedes 229.5 spec. I have a Mercedes. I've seen the list of oils.

But, pray tell, what is the best measure of viscosity? Is it SAE grade or HTHSV? It's the latter. You and your clan have all said this before.

So why claim there is a choice by referencing SAE when the Merc spec limits the HTHSV in a similar way to the SAE choice for 20 weight?

Here are the numbers:

SAE 20 means HTHSV of 2.6-2.9
Mercedes 229.5 means HTHSV of 3.5 min to 3.8 recommended by Mercedes since M1 0w40 has HTHSV 3.8

If you accept that HTHSV is the correct measure of viscosity, you wouldn't be talking about a choice in the context of 30 or 40 weight when the Mercedes 229.5 spec overrides that through specifying a minimum HTHSV of 3.5.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Amongst other things they are specifying a minimum...for protection...and for headroom on extended OCIs...I don't think the M1 is the maximum, thus defining the range.


Agreed. But from what I understand there isn't a maximum (so my mistake to suggest a range for 20 weight). Also, I can't find any 229.5 spec oils above HTHSV 3.8. So my two data points, minimum and Mercedes "optimum" suggest a narrow choice of viscosity globally.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
As to choice...

http://bevo.mercedes-benz.com/bevolisten/229.5_en.html

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there are a couple of grades in there aren't there ?


Yes I'm aware of the choice of grades, but for 229.5 the grade is somewhat irrelevant because the spec is narrow. Specifically it calls for a minimum HTHSV of 3.5. I thought everyone was in agreement that HTHSV was the best measure of viscosity, not grade.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
So now a 30w is a 40w you sound like someone else who preaches this tripe.


So you don't agree that HTHSV is the best measure of viscosity, rather than SAE grade? You understand that within 20 grade, within 30 grade, within 40 grade, there are huge variations in viscosity allowed? You understand that right?

So when one manufacturer specifies any 30 grade oil is ok, they are allowing a very wide variation in viscosity (as measured by HTHSV)? Probably a wider variation in viscosity than MB end up allowing with 229.5 oils.

Originally Posted By: Trav
What are you some sort of a friggin weirdo?


Charming.
 
Originally Posted By: MarkStock
Originally Posted By: Trav
So now a 30w is a 40w you sound like someone else who preaches this tripe.


So you don't agree that HTHSV is the best measure of viscosity, rather than SAE grade? You understand that within 20 grade, within 30 grade, within 40 grade, there are huge variations in viscosity allowed? You understand that right?

So when one manufacturer specifies any 30 grade oil is ok, they are allowing a very wide variation in viscosity (as measured by HTHSV)? Probably a wider variation in viscosity than MB end up allowing with 229.5 oils.

Originally Posted By: Trav
What are you some sort of a friggin weirdo?


Charming.


Most manufacturers also have their own certs or approvals that they require an oil to meet in order to be suitable for use in their engines.

There is more than HTHS visc, @40c visc and @100c visc in play here. They only define the general behaviours of the lubricant and speak nothing to how the lubricant is additized, how it performs at extremely low temperatures....etc. Many of these OTHER characteristics are what the manufacturer cert/approval process is about.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Mark:

With all due respect, there is a HUGE difference between the HTHS of a 20 weight, which is around 2.6-2.8cP, and what the Euro manufacturers spec, which is a MINIMUM of 3.5cP, with most oils, like Mobil 1 0w40, with its HTHS of 3.8cP, being higher than that.

I believe Shannow touched on it before, but once you get below the 2.6cP area (remember, HTHS is measured at 150C) the potential for wiping a bearing becomes incredibly high. So if you start with a lubricant who's HTHS is 2.6cP at 150C, you start off with a VERY narrow safety margin once temperatures climb.


OVERK1LL - this point that you make I've never disagreed with in principle. Take the same oils except with different HTHSV, take the same engines, and the lower HTHSV oil gives you less headroom. Simple principle.

I can't argue about what is enough headroom because I don't have the data that matters. I do see that min HTHSV in German cars is 3.5. That's very high compared to 2.6. But on the other hand I see the Japanese, whose engineering I respect the most, pushing down even lower. I see talk about lower friction engines and exotic oil that means the lighter oils have to be synthetic. Surely the headroom must have improved through engineering developments. Surely HTHSV of 2.6 in 2012 is not the same headroom as HTHSV of 2.6 in 1992.

I also see the Japanese attaining engine efficiency through things like less friction, more precision, whereas the Germans are going the route of smaller engines with turbos. The former is an approach that generates less heat, the latter an approach that generates more heat.

Just as the Germans realized their engine designs needed a certain amount of headroom, I think the Japanese also understand the headroom they need.

Now, onto the point of my post. It wasn't about Headroom!

It was about the assertion that it is impossible that one oil fits all.

My point was that Mercedes believes one oil does fit all. In every country, in almost every engine from 1.5L to 6.5L Black Series, M1 0w40 is the recommended oil. This suggests it's viscosity is appropriate for everyone in every operating condition. Grocery getter in mild England to autobahn blaster.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
demarpaint said:
Ford isn't the only company shutting its engines down when they're outside of certain operating parameters. Why should they and they alone be forces to removed these fail-safes, even in a hypothetical question? Answer: to support a certain position.


Take any company you'd like that uses 20 grade oil as the only choice and a fail safe system in a high performance engine application like Ford does and run my test. Then try it with a 30 grade oil and see what happens.
Click to expand...
 
Here's an extract from an interesting article that talks in a balanced and factual way about fuel efficiency drivers and resulting oil choices.

VW Audi Oil Spec Article

Quote:
ACEA and Audi oil standards:
To say that Europe has been more serious than the US about the fuel efficiency of their
vehicles is an understatement. In 2008, average CO2 emissions of passenger cars sold in
Europe will be 140g/km, which translates to an average of 40 miles per gallon. The US
equivalent, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) has been stuck at 27.5 mpg for
cars, and 20.7 mpg for trucks. To meet these ambitious goals, for now twenty years,
European manufacturers have been moving aggressively towards technologies bringing
more efficient combustion, more stress on a lighter engine, and have sought the
cooperation of the fuel and oil industry to provide chemicals supporting their new engine
technologies. ACEA (www.acea.be), the European Car Manufacturer Association,
defined tough new oil standards, and European lubricants became de facto a “spare part”
of new vehicles. All recent European engines have been designed with the assumption
that these ACEA-level lubricants would be available for the service of the car. Some
engines can take a “low-HTHS”, and they can therefore use the oil to get better gas
mileage. Some other engines, like Audi engines, need “high HTHS”.
 
Originally Posted By: Hounds
Originally Posted By: Shannow
. . . CAFE requires the manufacturer to take steps to ensure that the owners use the oil that the vehicle was CAFE certified to.

To certify to a 20, then to list 30 and 40 in the manual would not be taking those steps.

QED.


Could you provide a link to where this has been "QED"? Thanks!
 
I posted the below in another thread and received no response.

Very few here, I think, are experts in all the tests that are performed to meet oil specs. Hence I was hoping that someone with familiarity with those tests would validate or invalidate whether the tests that were identical in their requirements for 5w20 and 5w30 were meaningful as to expected wear and headroom.

There are 6 performance tests that need to be within the same parameters for both 5w20 and 5w30:

ASTM Ball Rust (ASTM D 6557)
Sequence IIIG
Sequence IVA (ASTM D 6891) (Average Cam Wear)
Sequence VG (ASTM D 6593)
Sequence VIII (ASTM D 6709) (Bearing Weight Loss)
TEOST MHT-4

And then there are numerous physical properties that need to be within the same parameters for both 5w20 and 5w30.

The link to the full spec sheet is below.

I find it interesting that some people are suggesting we go and run tests but haven't referenced anything in the actual tests that are performed that they disagree with.

Is anything in these tests flawed or not enough? If so, what is it? I'd like to know so that we can narrow the conversation down to something factual rather than speculate.

On the topic of what is different, the only thing that matters is HTHSV of 2.6 vs 2.9.

That's a ~10% difference. Is it conceivable that oil technology has made 20 weight oil 10% better in terms of headroom? I think it is. Of course that is simply my opinion, but it's a reasonable supposition. And given that the other performance parameters are identical, how do they interplay with the headroom issue?

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
Btw, so that it's out there, the specification difference for Ford's 5w20 spec vs their 5w30 spec is just three items a) Fuel economy, b) HTHS should be 2.6 in 5w20 vs 2.9 in 5w30 and c) Viscosity at 100c to be in the 20 weight and 30 weight ranges. All other tests had to achieve the same results between 5w20 & 5w30.

The spec can be found here:

http://www.ilma.org/resources/ford_service_fill_specs.pdf

And the extracts of the 3 specs that needed to be different is here:

HTHS Viscosity, mPa-sec @ 150°C & 106 1/sec (ASTM D 4683 or CEC L-36T-84)
New 5W-20 Oil 2.6 min
New 5W-30 Oil 2.9 min

Sequence VIB (ASTM D 6837)
SAE 5W-20
FEI @ 16 Hours 2.3% min
FEI @ 96 Hours 2.0% min
SAE 5W-30
FEI @ 16 Hours 1.8% min
FEI @ 96 Hours 1.5% min

Viscosity @ 100 °C (ASTM D 445), mm2/s, 5W-20 5.6 - Viscosity @ 100 °C (ASTM D 445), mm2/s, 5W-30 9.3 - div>
 
A while ago, I referenced Toyota only specifying 20 weight oil in the UK.

Trav decided to respond that "England" not the UK, had mild weather.

Here are the facts from the Met Office (official weather record keepers for the UK (and a government entity))

Highest daily maximum in England 38.5c
Lowest daily minimum in England -26.1c
Lowest daily minimum in Scotland -27.2c

For Germany and UK, here are the facts from Wikipedia (note that the England & Scotland temps are identical to the Met Office):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records

Highest temp Germany 40.2c
Highest temp England 38.5c

Lowest temp Germany -45.9c
Lowest temp England -26.1c
Lowest temp Scotland -27.2c
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Hounds
Originally Posted By: Shannow
. . . CAFE requires the manufacturer to take steps to ensure that the owners use the oil that the vehicle was CAFE certified to.

To certify to a 20, then to list 30 and 40 in the manual would not be taking those steps.

QED.


Could you provide a link to where this has been "QED"? Thanks!


JOD, several sources and other indicators, strongly point to the fact that this is the case. For example, Ford stated to their dealers that 5w20 was available in Walmart because they had an obligation to make it available.

Logically speaking also, CAFE want to improve fuel economy, so it would be pointless just requiring the testing without doing factory fill, writing 5w20 on the oil fill cap, making 5w20 available as bulk, in other words, asking the manufacturer to follow through as much as possible with actual usage of the fuel saving oil.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Hounds
Originally Posted By: Shannow
. . . CAFE requires the manufacturer to take steps to ensure that the owners use the oil that the vehicle was CAFE certified to.

To certify to a 20, then to list 30 and 40 in the manual would not be taking those steps.

QED.


Could you provide a link to where this has been "QED"? Thanks!


This particular letter is somewhat dated, but it is typical and describes the procedure followed with regard to emissions testing to include the type and weight of motor oil used by the vehicle manufacturer during emissions testing. Please see the attachment to the letter. You will note the EPA requires the manufacturer to specify the type and weight used in testing in the vehicles owners' manuals. www.ilma.org/advocacy/letters/gf4letter.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
Choices, does it make a difference ?
2
Replies
23
Views
6K
TomYoung
michael007
Something Different - Artificial Graphene Brake Pads from China
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
michael007
S
  • Locked
'15 Avalon 0w20/5w30 mix and OCI
Replies
11
Views
3K
JMJNet
wwillson
  • Locked
Answers - Pennzoil Technology behind "Made From Natural Gas" and Vehicle maintenance while driving less Q&A
Replies
5
Views
38K
RateNate
X
My study of Compounds, Greases, and Pastes for Lubricating Brakes on Japanese Automobiles
2
Replies
22
Views
36K
Owen Lucas
Back
Top Bottom