Have to Share some Old school Humor

[JohnBrowning]

I was talking with my Dad today. I began to explain to him about Ford and Hoda's more to 5W20 and the hopes they had to go through for the EPA to allow them to certify with these light oils. His eye got huge and his jaw droped. For a minute or two the color drained from his skin in disbelife. When he finaly regained his composure his exact words where " Why the He!! don't they just take the oil cap off and pi$$ in the crank case for crying out load!"

Now bear in mind that he has a lot of UOA experince thank to Uncle Sam. He worked closely with FMC in developing and field testing the Bradley Fighting Vechile. He also set up the Master Gunner Program for it as well as the NET TEAM, and UCOFT program. He actualy learned all of his UOA skills while working with the Bradley. So while he is not a triboligst or a Lubrication Engineer he has a lot of real world experince. So when he said this I about fell over laughing.

He thinks in terms of 600HP diesels and such so I am sure to him the idea of a 5W20 is even crazier then it is to me!

 

[Ken2]

Wait until he starts seeing 10W-30 diesel engine oils as the regular thing in the not-too-distant future. Modern oils can protect the engine, and the lighter oil provides real fuel savings. 1 or 2% fuel savings doesn't sound like much, but on a national scale does make a difference.


Ken

 

[JohnBrowning]

Ken2, I would never put a 20Wt. in anything I own and I actualy look to try new things. I am actualy going to try a 0W30 this winter. He has ran M1 15W50 in warm months and M1 10W30 in the winter months as long as he has been useing synthetic. The only way he would change this practice is if Delvac-1 was available localy! THen he would run a 5W40 year round.

I know oils are constanly improveing but why reinvent the wheel if you do not have to! 5W20 does nothing for me that 5W40 or 5W30 can not do!

[ June 20, 2004, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: JohnBrowning ]

 

[mikep]

Going by the title of your post I expected some jokes about 15w-40, 20w-50 and even 10w-40.

Funny story. If I told my father I was using a 5w-20 motor oil, more than likely he'd have the same reaction. His experience is limited to 30 years of maintaining a few White/Volvo tanker trucks with Detroit Diesel and Cummins Diesel engines. Like your dad...a 5w-20 motor oil to him is like a glass of Miller Lite to an English Beer lover (hey Whimsey...we need to make a stop at Kroughs for some more of that Oatmeal Stout!!!).

 

[Patman]

Times have changed though. It's quite obvious from the many 5w20 and 0w20 UOAs on here that it gets the job done very well in these new engines that call for it.

I won't be running it in my C5 when I get it, but I certainly will run it in my mom's Mazda Protege 5 if that is the car she chooses.

 

[dropitby]

What would he say about this 0/5.Remember not that long ago we used straight weights so chang is in the air.

http://www.neosyntheticoil.com/0w5.htm

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Ken2, I would never put a 20Wt. in anything I own and I actualy look to try new things

---

Old school thinking.

Patman is right, times have changed. John, techonology is better now and with new additives available, even 20wt dino oils are showing excellent results. 20years ago, maybe not although the original M1 was a 20wt. It's how the oil is made IMO, not so much the viscosity. UOA's have proven that most of the 20wts do a outstanding job protecting modern engines. Their isn't any disputing it at this point. In certain engines however, thicker oils are better like the LS1 and Jeep.

[ June 20, 2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[JohnBrowning]

Buster,to date the best that can be said is that in a small number of application by Ford and Honda 5W20 has worked great in the short term! We have already seen it do rather poorly in one or more applications not specificly recomending a 20Wt.

Patman, I am glad you are not going to run 5W20 in your C5! If other Corvette owners found out you were running a 20Wt. they would organize an intervention for you and the car!

I am still waiting for the day that 5W20 wears a CI-4 rateing or higher and is recomended by any large commercial diesle manufacture. I can see 10W30 because we already have some excellent 10W30 CI-4 oils for mixed fleet use. Delo 400 10W30 comes to mind. If it were easier to find a CI-4 10W30 on the shelfs more people would use them. I would use a CI-4 10W30 in the summer if I could find it. I know Delo 400 has a 10W30 CI-4 mixed fleet oil.

 

[sbc350gearhead]

I would not hesitate to use a 20 weight, in an application that calls for it.

 

[Whimsey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
Buster,to date the best that can be said is that in a small number of application by Ford and Honda 5W20 has worked great in the short term! We have already seen it do rather poorly in one or more applications not specificly recomending a 20Wt.

Patman, I am glad you are not going to run 5W20 in your C5! If other Corvette owners found out you were running a 20Wt. they would organize an intervention for you and the car!

I am still waiting for the day that 5W20 wears a CI-4 rateing or higher and is recomended by any large commercial diesle manufacture. I can see 10W30 because we already have some excellent 10W30 CI-4 oils for mixed fleet use. Delo 400 10W30 comes to mind. If it were easier to find a CI-4 10W30 on the shelfs more people would use them. I would use a CI-4 10W30 in the summer if I could find it. I know Delo 400 has a 10W30 CI-4 mixed fleet oil.

---

Your analysis that 5W-20 works real well in cars spec'd for it and NOT well in cars NOT spec'd is accurate to a point. If you have real good UOA's even in what you call the "short term" what makes you think that in the long run the 5W-20 oils will then cause problems later on in engines spec'd for it? Aren't UOA's an indication of how a paticular oil effects engine wear? In addition an UOA can tell you when the oil is used up and it's time for a change before wear increases. As far as stating that there are no 5W-20 oils for heavy duty diesel engines or any diesel engines at this point in time is correct. But that doesn't mean it won't happen in the future

. But a diesel engine and a modern gasoline engines are two different creatures

. In the interest of fairness I do use Motorcraft 5W-20 in my 2002 F-150 all year round. In my wife's 2002 Explorer I now use Schaeffer's 5W-30 Blend, previously Motorcraft 5W-30, and Schaeffer's 5W-30 Blend in my 1996 Ford Contour with the 2.0L Zetec( my very poor man's bimmer

). So as you can see while I do use 5W-20 in a vehicle spec'd for it, I don't use it in a vehicle NOT spec'd for it or not originally spec'd for it. But that's of my choosing. Though I'm sure the Motorcraft or any Ford spec'd 5W-20 would be better in the 1996 Contour than a DINO 5W-30 oil that was originally spec'd by Ford.

Mikep, you're right it's been toooooo long since we toasted with some of Krogh's Oatmeal Stout

. Give me a shout this week and hopefully we can add our names to the "honor roll" at Krogh's

.

Whimsey

 

[427Z06]

As an engineer with more than 24 years experience in everything from military jet engines to VW 4 bangers, I've learned to keep an open mind. However, that doesn't mean that'll accept anything as proof until the scientific method is applied appropriately. At this point, I see to manny people jumping on the 5w20 bandwagon without the proper discourse.

Granted we are splitting hairs here. Today's 5w20s (that meet Ford's spec) are probably closer to a quality semi-syn light 5w30, and in this regard, are probably much better than a mediocre 5w30 dinos. And we've seen plenty of data on how long engines can last on 5w30 dinos.

As an analogy, let's take diet for example. Eggs good for you, no, bad for you, now, good for you if you don't over do it. Fat, no one cared, bad for you, now, better than carbohydrates!Previuosly,everything low-fat, now, everthing low-carb. When was it that Atkins first wrote his book...late fifties, early sixties?

All the evidence I've seen here so far indictates that Ford modular design type engines don't throw
out any more wear medals in a UOA than other equivalent technology oils of higher viscosity...period.

Granted, they may give you better gas milage/HP, but at what expense?

 

[buster]

quote:

---

I would not hesitate to use a 20 weight, in an application that calls for it.

---

That sums it for me.

If we base it on science, then the UOA's have proven that the current 20wt oils are doing very well, not just good. In fact they are out performing 30/40wt oils in certain applications. I highly doubt Ford/Honda would risk engine failures to save a few MPG. It just depends on the engine as 350gearhead stated. Viscosity is simply one component to an oils total makeup.

Atkins is a fad and not backed up by good science. Duke and University of Pennsylvania are doing studies on it as we speak. So far from what I've read, it still comes down to calories whether you eat a piece of steak or bowl of pasta. I lost 26lbs eating nothing but carbs. Many people that go on the Atkins diet are essentially just cutting calories. Sorry didn't mean to make this a diet topic but I'm getting tired of this Atkins crap. What every happend to eating less and excersing? Are we that lazy now?

[ June 20, 2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
If we base it on science, then the UOA's have proven that the current 20wt oils are doing very well, not just good.

---

Pointing to a dozen UOAs without controlling all the variables is NOT science. I hope you don't have a science degree, or I'm going to be VERY disappointed in our education system.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Pointing to a dozen UOAs without controlling all the variables is NOT science

---

I realize that, but we don't have access to "real" science on here. All we can go by is the data collected via UOA's, in which their are more then a dozen. If we were to assume anything based on real science, none of us would know anything based on this board's UOA's then bc no studies on here that I'm aware of have controlled variables.

We observe, collect data, hypothesize and thats about it....maybe form a theory or two but NO scientific facts are available relating to viscosity vs engine wear. My observations tell me their is nothing wrong with a 20wt oil in a car that calls for one.

[ June 20, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: buster ]

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
I realize that, but we don't have access to "real" science on here. All we can go by is the data collected via UOA's, in which their are more then a dozen.


Yes but 99% of them of are of engines that are of similar design.


We observe, collect data, hypothesize and thats about it....maybe form a theory or two but NO scientific facts are available relating to viscosity vs engine wear. My observations tell me their is nothing wrong with a 20wt oil in a car that calls for one.

---

Yes but we could do a better job of our analysis here. If 99% of Ford modular V8s put out 1 or 2 ppm of Pb in a 5,000 mi OCI UOA, no matter the engine oil that is used, then someone gets a UOA of a "5w20" with 0 to 1 ppm of Pb, what was proven? Nothing really, other than the data suggests that the "5w20" oil did no worse than any common viscosity oil of the similar quality.

 

[buster]

quote:

---

Yes but we could do a better job of our analysis here. If 99% of Ford modular V8s put out 1 or 2 ppm of Pb in a 5,000 mi OCI UOA, no matter the engine oil that is used, then someone gets a UOA of a "5w20" with 0 to 1 ppm of Pb, what was proven? Nothing really, other than the data suggests that the "5w20" oil did no worse than any common viscosity oil of the similar quality.

---

You make a good point and I agree with you. We could do a lot better.

 

[crossbow]

does anyone not put their foot in to it passing someone, MPG is out the door and so is your engine protection.

Actually I raced on 0w-20 for about 4 months (almost every weekend, usually bouncing off the rev-limiter like a madman), as well as in the summer maryland heat and humidity (90-100F, 70-100% humidity). My wear numbers were actually lower then my previous UOA. Hehehe. (Mainly due to engine breakin finishing up on the previous uoa).

Ya its not scientific, ya my engine will probably explode, yadda yadda yadda. Ya and if you stand outside long enough your icecream will melt, or you'll be hit fit a falling sperm whale.

I'll still be trying out the hotly debated redline engine oil in my new car (04 Mazda 6s MTX), and having mr Terry post some results on the application, on the autox track, the drag track, and the road track (VIR and Summit Point).

5w-20 > All

[ June 20, 2004, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: crossbow ]

 

[Whimsey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

Granted we are splitting hairs here. Today's 5w20s (that meet Ford's spec) are probably closer to a quality semi-syn light 5w30, and in this regard, are probably much better than a mediocre 5w30 dinos. And we've seen plenty of data on how long engines can last on 5w30 dinos.

Granted, they may give you better gas milage/HP, but at what expense?

---

That's what I've been saying 427Z06. Todays's 5W-20 oils that meet the Ford specs are better oils than dino 5W-30 or even some "semi synthetic" 5W-30's. Are they a better oil than a true synthetic 5W-30 or a QUALITY BLEND such as Schaeffers 5W-30, I doubt it. But as you pointed out early on even running most engines on dino 5W-30 will still result in a long engine life if changed reasonably. Of course 5W-20's are not for EVERY engine. And I never said they were. Unlike some members who feel that a diesel rated "thicker" oil is appropriate in most engines. What I find interesting is that those of us that use "p*ss water oil" are providing UOA's. Whereas our most vocal proponents of thicker or diesel rated oils have not provided UOA's from their experiences, just criticism of thin oils. Of course I could have missed their UOA's and would welcome enlightenment. While I know there are UOA's using thicker oils and even diesel rated oils in particular engines I'd still like to see THEIR UOA's. It really comes down to we as the owners have to decide what's best for our circumstances. There is NO ONE oil to fit everybody's needs. In some cases the newer thinner oils seem to be better. In other cases the thicker and or diesel rated oils seem to work the best. If people kept up the thicker is better attitude we'd still all be using 20W-50 only

.

427Z06, I thought you'd appreciate this. I picked my sister from Austin who flew into NJ for our annual B'day celebrations. Now she is "slightly" liberal and a graduate of UT. So I picked her up at the airport in NJ with my pickup truck and had Rush Limbaugh on the radio

. It's amazing what a good sense of humor she has

.

Whimsey

 

[Ray H]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:

Atkins is a fad and not backed up by good science.

---

Ok, then prey explain why the Atkins, South Beach, et al low-carb diets parallel very closely the dietary recommendations for Type-II diabetics. (The distinction of Type-II diabetes is that its onset occurs in adulthood with little if any genetic predisposition. The inference is that it's induced by improper dietary habits. Type-I, "juvenile" diabites, on the other hand, is full-blown genetics-gone-awry.) Without intending to (so far as I'm aware), Robert Atkins's clinical research studies simply confirmed what ALL diabetic specialists had been recommending (with the AMA's full blessing) all along for the last 40 years for their Type-II diabetic patients. Namely, cut the carbs to allow the pancreas a chance to recover from attempting to overcompensate with excess insulin production - which overcompensation eventually results in "defective" insulin. Most people are at least dimly aware that insulin is involved with sugar metabolism (specifically "helping" glucose across the celluar wall). What isn't generally understood by most people is that insulin will synthesize FAT from glucose when the body is sated with its sugar requirement. So, it's NOT just calories. The American diet is just plain too heavy on the carbs. It's a problem of chemical balance, or more specifically, lack thereof. With both obesity AND Type-II diabetes at pandemic rates (with the former seeming to be enexorably linked to the latter over time) in the U.S., and the foundation of the traditional "nutritional pyrimid" awash in carbs, it should be apparant that there's something fundementally wrong with the conventional "wisdom". Whether Atkins will ultimately be proved right or wrong is still to be determined. But only a fool would continue to blindly rely on the American Dietetic Association's blather, either.

 

[Gene K]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray H:

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:

Atkins is a fad and not backed up by good science.

---

Ok, then prey explain why the Atkins, South Beach, et al low-carb diets parallel very closely the dietary recommendations for Type-II diabetics. (The distinction of Type-II diabetes is that its onset occurs in adulthood with little if any genetic predisposition. The inference is that it's induced by improper dietary habits. Type-I, "juvenile" diabites, on the other hand, is full-blown genetics-gone-awry.) Without intending to (so far as I'm aware), Robert Atkins's clinical research studies simply confirmed what ALL diabetic specialists had been recommending (with the AMA's full blessing) all along for the last 40 years for their Type-II diabetic patients. Namely, cut the carbs to allow the pancreas a chance to recover from attempting to overcompensate with excess insulin production - which overcompensation eventually results in "defective" insulin. Most people are at least dimly aware that insulin is involved with sugar metabolism (specifically "helping" glucose across the celluar wall). What isn't generally understood by most people is that insulin will synthesize FAT from glucose when the body is sated with its sugar requirement. So, it's NOT just calories. The American diet is just plain too heavy on the carbs. It's a problem of chemical balance, or more specifically, lack thereof. With both obesity AND Type-II diabetes at pandemic rates (with the former seeming to be enexorably linked to the latter over time) in the U.S., and the foundation of the traditional "nutritional pyrimid" awash in carbs, it should be apparant that there's something fundementally wrong with the conventional "wisdom". Whether Atkins will ultimately be proved right or wrong is still to be determined. But only a fool would continue to blindly rely on the American Dietetic Association's blather, either.

---

Actually the best science says, cut the carbs, cut the fat, and cut the calories.

It is a well known fact that a near starvation level diet low in carbs, fats, and calories increases lifespan in animal studies by 40-80%.

I dont argue that low carb is the way to go. I just argue that Atkins only had part of the equation.

Gene