GOODBYE 0w-20 5W-20

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
829
Location
Alberta
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Originally Posted By: carviewsonic
Originally Posted By: Hellbird
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!
I detest engine start/stop. Had it on a couple of rental vehicles (week and a half each while on vacation). There is no way I would buy a car with that feature, unless it could be permanently disabled. And, I wonder what's the point, when I see so many large SUVs and crew cab pickups on the road, usually with only the driver in them. I don't care what other people drive, but some of the features new cars are using to get a couple more mpgs just seems overkill, in the context of the overall national fleet.
What is the problem with start/stop? If the battery & starter are designed to take the abuse, why would it be a problem? Too slow to restart?
A coupe of examples: Parking lots - Engine stops while waiting for another car to back out of spot. - Lift foot off brake, engine starts and pulll into spot. - Engine dies in the few seconds it takes to make sure I'm parked between the lines. - Put gear shift into park, engine starts again! - Press and hold start/stop button to shut off engine before leaving vehicle, ugh. A/C - Everytime engine stops, the interior fan speed decreases, and vented air gradually warms somewhat. - Turn up fan to counteract above, engine starts again. - Move ahead several feet (traffic, waiting to turn, etc.) then stop, engine shuts off again after several seconds, usually just before you lift foot off brake to go. - Engine starts again, away we go. This final item is maybe just a matter of getting used to it, but, waiting for a break in traffic to turn left on a busy street and engine dies (er, I mean stops as per programming). Not confidence inspiring at all. I hope this thing starts when I have to scoot across the oncoming lane!
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
9,846
Location
Virginia
Very, very well stated. There's a reason why I always read your posts on here. This is just another great example of why I do.
 

CT8

Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Messages
15,391
Location
Idaho
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Reduced CAFE standards will reduce the pace at which turbos are appearing in cars.
I hope not. I actually rather enjoy better MPGs along with more power when needed. .
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
866
Location
OH, US
I might be a minority here, but I've not found start/stop to be an issue on my current car (F56 MINI). It's off by default in 2 of the 3 driving modes, and can still be disabled in eco mode if you wish. Things might be better because it's a manual, but it's ready to go as soon as I touch the clutch and I've never once seen it stop/start repeatedly in situations like those that are quoted. Even in traffic, it picks up on the fact that things are stop and go pretty much immediately. Even if it did, it's ready to go before you need it so it's no inconvenience. I also don't really don't understand all the hate on DI and turbos. All but one of the cars I've owned in the last 15 years have had turbos, and never once encountered a turbo-related issue - let alone a failure. It's not 1980. With synthetic lubricants and modern hardware, turbo failures are extremely rare even at high mileages. Better than half of the cars I've had in that time have also been direct injected. Yes, I understand that fuel dilution issues are more prevalent. Sticking to a reasonable maintenance schedule with an appropriate oil are really all it takes to keep it at bay, and lower sulfur levels (assuming something hasn't been done to set that astray) should reduce that impact. As far as I've seen/read, they're far less of an issue in Europe where fuel quality standards have been higher for some time. *puts on flame retardant suit* I don't see the big deal when these things are implemented properly. I'd love to see higher fuel economy, and appreciate the power and efficiency that turbocharging and direct injection bring. I also despise the number of behemoth SUVs I see everywhere with a single occupant pointlessly ruining the planet, but that's more a matter of personal taste. If you need a truck for your livelihood or road conditions, or on a regular enough basis to warrant daily driving one, that's one thing. Buying a Tahoe to drive alone everywhere is another. --Matt
 
Last edited:

MolaKule

Staff member
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
22,274
Location
Iowegia - USA
Originally Posted By: redbone3
The low hanging fruit has all been picked. Increases in mpg are now very expensive and entail higher maintenance costs (Direct injection, Turbocharging, etc).
Incremental improvements will be costly. When government mandates are based on the Precautionary Principle, instead of science, things get ridiculous. From the lubrication chemistry point of view, we can formulate more exotic engine oils but they too will be costly. However, I don't think the LV oils will disappear. IF an engine can run on LV oils without undue engine wear, it's a win-win for everyone.
Quote:
I also despise the number of behemoth SUVs I see everywhere with a single occupant pointlessly ruining the planet, but that's more a matter of personal taste. If you need a truck for your livelihood or road conditions, or on a regular enough basis to warrant daily driving one, that's one thing. Buying a Tahoe to drive alone everywhere is another.
Again it is a matter of personal choice. I don't want the guvment dictating my choice of vehicles.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
3,561
Location
Central Iowa
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: edwardh1
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. auto industry would not on their own ever raised gas mileage unless pushed by the feds. no state could do it (cept maybe cali.
Not true. In the eighties, in the early days of CAFE, actual fuel economy for the delivered fleet increased at a higher rate than federal regulations required. Guess what the highest volume vehicle was? Hint; it was a RWD 4 cyl and wasn't a pickup or SUV. Problem is that many buyers are currently drunk on cheap fuel, so they buy thirsty vehicles as daily drivers. For now this may well make sense and it may make economic sense for the lives of the vehicles they are making the payments on. Conservation always matters. Fuel economy standards coupled with CAFE penalties are a way of helping to avoid people buying oversized thirsty vehicles as an ego supplement and not because they have any real need for them. The current era of cheap fuel has brought us to a new era of overpriced and overweight vehicles sold as commuters and family haulers. But people should be allowed to buy what they want! Sure, except that there are many externalities involved. Your choice affects me and every other driver.
I will concede that many folks buy big vehicles that drink a lot of fuel out of making a social statement or making up for a lack of testosterone, but there are many of us that need a larger 4x4 type of vehicle as a daily driver on a regular basis. Not everyone lives in a major metro area. Some of us have to actually drive gravel roads daily to and from the house and they can range from dusty and dry, to snow drifts, to soupy muddy messes. There are many days where it is totally impractical to drive the average auto down these roads. Now, if you want to shell out more money to have the state pave the two miles of gravel road I have to go down to get to the highway, then please crack open your wallet! I would love to have the road to my house paved! Would even increase my property values. All this CAFE stuff assumes that everyone lives on a paved city street, only drives on a major highway, etc. In days gone by, something like my 1974 Pontiac Catalina could handle even the gravel roads to my house most of the time. A Prius today would not. And also, there is the wildlife factor for those of us that live rural. It is much safer to take a hit from a 10 pt buck in my 3/4 ton pickup, or even the Catalina I mentioned, than a Chevy Volt.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
18,657
Location
...
Generally you will see SUVs with one occupant on workdays. On weekends they are filled with people and stuff. That is the reason they were purchased. Most households with two vehicles have a larger family car and a smaller commuter car. That is a general observation. Let people buy the vehicle they want or one that suits their purpose.
 

dblshock

Thread starter
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,954
Location
WI.
all good points...but the mfg's will I believe upgrade their oil specs or at least be more accommodative offering a 0W-20 as a option.
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
13,275
Location
Colorado Springs
Quote:
I will concede that many folks buy big vehicles that drink a lot of fuel out of making a social statement or making up for a lack of testosterone, but there are many of us that need a larger 4x4 type of vehicle as a daily driver on a regular basis. Not everyone lives in a major metro area. Some of us have to actually drive gravel roads daily to and from the house and they can range from dusty and dry, to snow drifts, to soupy muddy messes. There are many days where it is totally impractical to drive the average auto down these roads. Now, if you want to shell out more money to have the state pave the two miles of gravel road I have to go down to get to the highway, then please crack open your wallet! I would love to have the road to my house paved! Would even increase my property values. All this CAFE stuff assumes that everyone lives on a paved city street, only drives on a major highway, etc. In days gone by, something like my 1974 Pontiac Catalina could handle even the gravel roads to my house most of the time. A Prius today would not. And also, there is the wildlife factor for those of us that live rural. It is much safer to take a hit from a 10 pt buck in my 3/4 ton pickup, or even the Catalina I mentioned, than a Chevy Volt.
After observing numerous accidents that involved pick-up trucks I came long time to conclusion that they play in the same league with Yugo, maybe bit stronger.
 

FZ1

Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,847
Location
Texas
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Reduced CAFE standards will reduce the pace at which turbos are appearing in cars.
I hope not. I actually rather enjoy better MPGs along with more power when needed. .
Turbos don't get better mileage in the real world...the turbos are better for CAFE testing...That's why mfgs have them. My NA 2014 Accord can get 40mpg at 60mph. I prefer simple vs. complex. JMO you are welcome to your's.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
However, I don't think the LV oils will disappear. IF an engine can run on LV oils without undue engine wear, it's a win-win for everyone.
Been my point for ages...if you throw the body out with 20,000 miles left in the engine or 100,000 miles left on the engine, the one that used less fuel wins for you... and as you point out (without saying), expensive lubes to get the engine to last satisfactorily while costing you more than the fuel that you save is dumb.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
28,122
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: dubber09
If it were about gas mileage, we'd use something like Charles Pogue Carb since DI engines don't save gas.
It's about passing tests, not real world results. wink
 
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
13,275
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Reduced CAFE standards will reduce the pace at which turbos are appearing in cars.
I hope not. I actually rather enjoy better MPGs along with more power when needed. .
Turbos don't get better mileage in the real world...the turbos are better for CAFE testing...That's why mfgs have them. My NA 2014 Accord can get 40mpg at 60mph. I prefer simple vs. complex. JMO you are welcome to your's.
Turbos found their way to cars initially to increase torque at low rpm's not because of emission standards.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
3,561
Location
Central Iowa
Originally Posted By: edyvw
After observing numerous accidents that involved pick-up trucks I came long time to conclusion that they play in the same league with Yugo, maybe bit stronger.
But the driver or occupants usually fare better or walk away from the pickup than the Yugo or Chevy Volt kind of vehicle. The only accidents I was referring to was animal strikes. In most cases, a deer strike on a small auto, and the deer is coming thru the windshield. On a pickup, that is less likely to happen. I will concede that many who operate pickups and large SUV's tend to take for granted things and overdrive their capabilities so that it seems the vehicles are less able to absorb hits and accidents.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
1,768
Location
NE
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.
laws already on the books for that, false narrative. This is really about reducing cost and complexity of future cars/trucks to meet a standard(which the EPA has no business setting since that is not their mission) which the OEMS' were never allowed to have input as they were brow beatan by the previous administration. also, increase fuel economy reduces vehcihle safety, that is something the Obama admin didnt want to mention.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
1,365
Location
Europe
I for one will always be grateful to the US EPA. Europe was far too wedded, for far too long, to the 3.5 min HTHS specification which meant that mineral 10W30's were almost impossible to make and non-fuel efficient xxW-40s were the norm. Had it not been for the US example of moving first to 2.9 and later 2.6 min HTHS, the OEMs that control the specs in Europe would never have moved away from their 'safe place'. My tiny 830kg Suzuki now chugs along with 0W20 in the sump and regularly gets 70 mpg. In my eyes, that's true progress!
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
5,337
Location
Southeast Texas
Quote:
I also despise the number of behemoth SUVs I see everywhere with a single occupant pointlessly ruining the planet, but that's more a matter of personal taste. If you need a truck for your livelihood or road conditions, or on a regular enough basis to warrant daily driving one, that's one thing. Buying a Tahoe to drive alone everywhere is another.
We own an 8 passenger Honda Odyssey. I have raised three kids in it, and hosted pairs of exchange students for years. Typically, we have had 7 passengers in it. Thats exactly why we bought it. With that in mind, sometimes my wife or I are seen driving it alone. Should I be judged and condemned by someone who does not know me for "ruining the planet"? This whole "holier than thou" vehicle judgement thing is so obnoxious and tiresome. Sorry folks, I kind of like my freedom. Get over it.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
7,962
Location
California
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Thank God. Do you really want V8s outlawed for no good reason?
As much as I consider myself an environmentalist - V8s have their place. There's no place for a twin-turbo gasoline V6 in big trucks or luxury cars(at least in the size frame of the Mercedes S-Class/BMW 7 Series/Audi A8/Lexus LS), and the V8 is going to be worked less = more durable = more reliable. We'll see how the new HO EcoBoost in the Raptor and Toyota's twin-turbo GR engine in the new Lexus LS500 holds up = both are twin-turbo 3.5L V6s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top