GOODBYE 0w-20 5W-20

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,954
Location
WI.
WASHINGTON — Moving forcefully against Obma-era environmental rules, President Donald Trump is set to announce in Michigan plans to re-examine federal requirements that regulate the fuel efficiency of new cars and trucks. Trump is expected to reveal his plans during an appearance Wednesday at the American Center for Mobility in Ypsilanti, Michigan, where he’ll challenge emissions targets that were a centerpiece of former President Barack Obama’s strategy to combat global warming. The rollback underscores the Trump administration’s rejection of mainstream climate science in an effort to boost economic growth. The center, about 30 miles west of Detroit, was used to produce B-24 bombers during World War II and is being converted into an automotive testing and product development center. During his visit, Trump is expected to meet with auto executives and workers and discuss “how his plans for rolling back federal red tape will lead to more American jobs and higher wages, specifically in the automobile sector,” Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters. The EPA under Obama had promulgated a rule for cars and trucks requiring a fleet-wide average of 36 mpg in real-world driving by 2025. The president will travel later Wednesday to Nashville, Tennessee, where he’ll lay a wreath at President Andrew Jackson’s tomb to mark what would have been Jackson’s 250th birthday, before holding a campaign-style rally in the city. But the most significant move of the day will likely be the president’s announcement on the fuel-economy targets. While the move will have no immediate effect, it is expected to set the stage for weaker fuel efficiency standards as well as drawn-out legal battles with environmental groups and states such as California that have adopted their own tough tailpipe standards for drivers. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers — which represents a dozen major car manufacturers including General Motors, Ford, Fiat Chrysler and Toyota — praised Trump’s action. It said he was creating an opportunity for federal and state officials to “reach a thoughtful and coordinated outcome predicated on the best and most current data.”
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
9,558
Location
Boston, MA
The huge Ford plant built vehicles BEFORE it was modified to handle B 24 construction. BTW the fake news here is that "tailpipe standards" and MPG standards are one in the same.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
7,962
Location
California
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
I don't think this automatically means that Xw-20 grades will go away.
I think xx-20 is here to stay. xx-16 might be threatened, but the cars using that oil are well past development phase in the pipeline. If anything, a return to bigger motors without turbos and start-stop.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
26,382
Location
Upstate NY
We still would be on carburetors if there wasn't a push for better fuel economy. We all should want clean water and air, at least for our kids and grandkids.
 

FZ1

Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,847
Location
Texas
Reduced CAFE standards will reduce the pace at which turbos are appearing in cars.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
6,638
Location
South Florida
Originally Posted By: Donald
We still would be on carburetors if there wasn't a push for better fuel economy. We all should want clean water and air, at least for our kids and grandkids.
Agree. Accept making a LAW that cars must get 40 miles per gallon, 50 miles per gallon, 70 miles per gallon, is a little ridiculous, no? You can only squeeze so much energy out of a gallon of gasoline. The standards are outpacing technology. If they kept doing what they were doing, the manufactures COULD do it. They would just have to get rid of ALL of their large SUV's, and sell cars that no one wants to buy, such as 800CC twin turbo micro cars that weight 1200 pounds and could comfortably fit 4 small children only. The car manufactures could easily make a car that get 65 miles per gallon. Problem? It would be slow. And small. And not very safe in a crash compared to larger vehicles. And NO ONE would buy them. Govt over-regulation are KILLING capitalist business in America. And why should WE have to suffer with over burdensome regulations when China and India just dump whatever they want into the atmosphere without a care. One nations sacrifice cannot fix all the worlds problems.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
7,962
Location
California
But at the same time, you also kill any incentive for automakers to innovate. If there was no EPA, NHTSA and no oil crisis, GM/Ford/Chrysler will be happily building body-on-frame cars with big carburated V8s with little in the way for safety. Sure, some things like TPMS are a pain.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
9
Location
Ohio
Originally Posted By: Donald
We still would be on carburetors if there wasn't a push for better fuel economy. We all should want clean water and air, at least for our kids and grandkids.
I agree. But personal responsibility "trumps" government mandates any day of the week. There must be a balance between realistic future MPG projections & the technology ($$) required to do so. The motoring public's due diligence in regards to vehicle maintenance, littering, dumping used oil in the creek, etc......is a factor that can have a greater impact on a cleaner environment than any Gov mandate. Nothing wrong with moving in a "cleaner" direction but when the manufacturers have to resort to over complicated start/stop systems & the like, i think more discussion is warranted. I work on cars for a living, i see what the majority of people are willing to spend their money on & its not tune ups & maintenance usually. If all my customers were as aware as the folks on this forum my job would be gravy!
 
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
17,501
Location
Clovis, CA
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
The car manufactures could easily make a car that get 65 miles per gallon. Problem? It would be slow. And small. And not very safe in a crash compared to larger vehicles. And NO ONE would buy them. Govt over-regulation are KILLING capitalist business in America.
Either that or make the majority of the cars out of carbon fiber including the fasteners.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
9
Location
Ohio
Originally Posted By: nthach
But at the same time, you also kill any incentive for automakers to innovate. If there was no EPA, NHTSA and no oil crisis, GM/Ford/Chrysler will be happily building body-on-frame cars with big carburated V8s with little in the way for safety. Sure, some things like TPMS are a pain.
Racing has been a bigger influence on innovation than the gov IMO.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
7,962
Location
California
Originally Posted By: Hellbird
There must be a balance between realistic future MPG projections & the technology ($$) required to do so. The motoring public's due diligence in regards to vehicle maintenance, littering, dumping used oil in the creek, etc......is a factor that can have a greater impact on a cleaner environment than any Gov mandate. Nothing wrong with moving in a "cleaner" direction but when the manufacturers have to resort to over complicated start/stop systems & the like, i think more discussion is warranted.
I think start/stop unless it was in a true hybrid(not GM BAS) is only going to shorten a car's lifespan and make it more expensive to maintain(AGM batteries and starters will be going out sooner). Turbos are also another nightmare as well. if I ever owned a car with start/stop, I would pay a dealer tech to turn it off for me. People don't realize cars need to be maintained and fluids need to be responsibly disposed of. The automakers have good intentions with "lifetime fill" fluids IMO but there isn't such a thing in practice as we all know there. Not everyone will maintain a car - if you live in the city, you can get away with transit, car share(GM does have a very good program in Maven - late model Chevy Volts, Cruzes, Malibus and Equinoxes/Traverses/Tahoes as well as the ATS in their fleet, with all the usual GM stuff and OnStar support), or Uber/Lyft. But in suburbia, you need a car. We're going to hit the law of diminishing returns with gasoline - it's time for battery electric/fuel cell hybrid cars to hit the economies of scale. Tesla has the right ideas with the Model S/X and is playing a big gamble with the Model 3(but I think GM beat them to the punch with the Bolt and I saw quite a few of them this past weekend). Sure, it might suck for people who work on cars - but we can only juice so much out of the internal combustion engine, which won't be going away for a while but very few liquids can come close to the energy in a gallon of gas. And the nice part about electric cars aside from brake fluid/system coolant/drive train lubricant - no engine oil is needed. But Tesla only wants their techs to touch their cars, and the automakers save for Toyota/Honda and from what I've read GM are starting to be aftermarket friendly.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
710
Location
Arkansas
This wouldn't stop me from using Xw20. However, I think the EPA oversteps their bounds some, but by no way would want them to disappear. Look at pictures of major cities years ago as compared to today. Without the EPA, the air would still be that nasty looking!
 

dblshock

Thread starter
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,954
Location
WI.
I own a TGDI platform and it gets 45mpg..it also needs an oci every 2k and it will be fortunate to last 125k the way it fouls the lubricant system...seems counter productive.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
14,674
Location
Kendall, FL
I doubt 5/0W-20 will take a hit. It's very unfortunate that you're suffering such Buyers Remorse dblshock. Maybe you're overthinking this whole thing.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
924
Location
Reno, NV
The low hanging fruit has all been picked. Increases in mpg are now very expensive and entail higher maintenance costs (Direct injection, Turbocharging, etc).
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
36,242
Location
NY
Originally Posted By: nthach
But at the same time, you also kill any incentive for automakers to innovate. If there was no EPA, NHTSA and no oil crisis, GM/Ford/Chrysler will be happily building body-on-frame cars with big carburated V8s with little in the way for safety. Sure, some things like TPMS are a pain.
I'm sure they continue to innovate, only with less emphasis/pressure on fuel economy.
 
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
3,784
Location
Northern Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: Donald
We still would be on carburetors if there wasn't a push for better fuel economy. We all should want clean water and air, at least for our kids and grandkids.
Yes we all want clean water and clean air. But where does diminishing results versus the much increased effort/cost overcome more common sense investments such as health care $ ? The money comes out of only one pocket, the taxpayer. Any extra cost for improved emissions or rebates for electric cars comes from the consumer/taxpayer in one format or another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top