GOODBYE 0w-20 5W-20

[mkosem]

Would safety really matter as much if the government didn't push for it?

I know I came across this story a while ago, and the same car sold outside the US ended up being a lot less safe: http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda...-mexico-and-u-s

In cases like that, where the manufacturer appears to have $ instead of driver safety in mind, it doesn't seem too awful to have the govt. set the bar. Even the Chevy mentioned there, for a $2000 option, only has 1/5 the airbags of the US model. I'd imagine people here would choose the cheaper option without airbags to save some scratch at least some of the time if they had it, and we'd experience more crash fatalities than we used to as a result of it, but it's s bit of a stretch to me to imagine the scenario of optional safety features at this point since safety requirements have driven innovation in that area for as long as they have here.

--Matt

 

[wemay]

Bitog cares about infinitesimal "better" wear Protection based on boundary layer thickness. The rest of the country reads "0W-20 will save you money by means of better mpg", and that's what they want. 0/5W-20 is not going away as the recommended viscosity in your Civic or other vehicles already recommending it. There will always be one-offs where a re-spec towards a higher viscosity is made but these things occurred before this proposed push back by the current administration.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Bitog cares about infinitesimal "better" wear Protection based on boundary layer thickness. The rest of the country reads "0W-20 will save you money by means of better mpg", and that's what they want. 0/5W-20 is not going away as the recommended viscosity in your Civic or other vehicles already recommending it. There will always be one-offs where a re-spec towards a higher viscosity is made but these things occurred before this proposed push back by the current administration.


And the current "push back" isn't to rescind the CAFE standards applying to today's vehicles, only for very future ones.

 

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted By: dblshock
at least the big ten mfg's won't have to insist on 0/20. I'm thinking we'll go back to a range based on wear vs. economy..just creates more marketing opportunities.


I never used 0/20 oil in my 0/20 Mazda. Always 5/30 and once or twice a 5/20 for winter. We are in a moderate climate here in SC.
Also Mazda owners manual states 5/30 ok outside of the USA but must use 0/20 USA ... or something like that, I would check the manual but my wife has the car at work and I am off today >>. )

 

[Hellbird]

Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Originally Posted By: surfstar
I've always had a problem with consumers believing that the free market has their best interests in mind.

Corporations don't. Need proof? Look at past history.

Without a requirement to produce safer, more efficient vehicles, there would be none.

Don't say that if there's a demand that a company would fill it. That's bull excrement.

The government exists to protect its citizens. Corporations exist to make money.


This thread needs to be shut down.
With that said, stating as you did .. .China exists to protect its citizens, North Korea exists to protect it citizens.
The King Of England existed to protect the people who discovered America.

I ALWAYS have a problem with people thinking a hired Public Servant is more smarter then me. Nothing could be further from the truth. Proof ... These are the people that you think know what is good for you, click


^^^^^^^^^THAT!!!!

 

[JeepWJ19]

So many slippery slope fallacies in this thread....

 

[CT8]

"The government exists to protect its citizens" Really?

 

[wwillson]

Lock time