Have to Share some Old school Humor

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by mikep:
Again, we are comparing a tiny sample which you said makes any judgement suspect at best.

Correctomundo...but the 5w20 lovers keep pointing to these same UOAs as "PROOF"! I'm guessing you don't consider them as proof either?

One last thing. I will certainly use whatever oil I d**n well please to. May I suggest you do the same.
mad.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by totttalled:

quote:

Originally posted by 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.


My Mazda Protege 5's owner's manual makes no mention of 0/5W 20. It specifies 5W30, or in really hot ambient temps, 10W30. But I run GC.


What year is it? I thought for sure that a 2002 or 2003 Mazda was calling for 5w20. When did Mazda begin specifying 5w20 then?
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Correctomundo...but the 5w20 lovers keep pointing to these same UOAs as "PROOF"! I'm guessing you don't consider them as proof either?

One last thing. I will certainly use whatever oil I d**n well please to. May I suggest you do the same.
mad.gif


FWIW...I don't consider myself a "5w-20 lover". I do use it in my new Mazda mostly because I don't want any hassle should a warranty issue arise. I used mostly a 5w-30 (Chevron Supreme or Havoline) in my '01 F150 because when I purchased it, 5w-20 was pretty tough to come by locally. I did one UOA with the Chevron Supreme and it showed excellent results so I stuck with it. Wouldn't you know, when I had the truck into the dealer for a cold start problem the first thing they did was drain the oil, put in Motorcraft 5w-20 and note on the service slip that non Ford spec motor oil was being used. Potential warranty hassles is why I'll give 5w-20 the benefit of the doubt until I have good reason not to. When I do a few UOA on my car if the results aren't what I hope for then I may indeed switch to a 30w. I really have no personal bias towards either.

As far as "proof" I don't think they really prove much of anything other than the raw data they contain. The conclusion I personally draw from them is that using a 5w-20 or 5w-30 in my car probably isn't going to make a huckuva lot of difference. Given that, I'll use the 5w-20 for reasons mentioned above.

I still would like to know whether you feel the 5w-20 performed more or less on par with the 30w oils based on those few comparos Crossbow posted.

BTW....Sorry to have angered you with the use it or not comment. It wasn't intended as a smart-*ss comment but I can see how it came off that way. No ill feelings on my part I can assure you. It was more or less me thinking out loud that realistically, it really won't make much of a difference either way.

cheers.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Patman:

quote:

Originally posted by totttalled:

quote:

Originally posted by 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.


My Mazda Protege 5's owner's manual makes no mention of 0/5W 20. It specifies 5W30, or in really hot ambient temps, 10W30. But I run GC.


What year is it? I thought for sure that a 2002 or 2003 Mazda was calling for 5w20. When did Mazda begin specifying 5w20 then?


Mine is a 2003.5 -- the only .5 differences are, IIRC, subwoofer, tweeters, roof rack, and maybe foglights. I got it new, and all I know is that the manual makes no mention of a 20W. Hope this helps!
 
I think I still might try 5w20 in there if my mom gets the Protege though. She drives so gentle that she could run 0w5 and not get bad wear numbers though.
smile.gif
 
quote:

FWIW...I don't consider myself a "5w-20 lover". I do use it in my new Mazda mostly because I don't want any hassle should a warranty issue arise. I used mostly a 5w-30 (Chevron Supreme or Havoline) in my '01 F150 because when I purchased it, 5w-20 was pretty tough to come by locally. I did one UOA with the Chevron Supreme and it showed excellent results so I stuck with it. Wouldn't you know, when I had the truck into the dealer for a cold start problem the first thing they did was drain the oil, put in Motorcraft 5w-20 and note on the service slip that non Ford spec motor oil was being used. Potential warranty hassles is why I'll give 5w-20 the benefit of the doubt until I have good reason not to. When I do a few UOA on my car if the results aren't what I hope for then I may indeed switch to a 30w. I really have no personal bias towards either.

How'd they know what oil was it?
 
quote:

Originally posted by darkdan:
How'd they know what oil was it?

They had done oil changes for me when I had the truck there for some of the regularly scheduled maintenance intervals. I always gave them my oil and in this particular instance it was Amsoil 0w-30 that was in the truck (put in by them on a previous visit). They promptly dumped it for the Motorcraft 5w-20. I was pretty P.O.'d given the cost of the oil and because it only had 1,000 or so miles on it. And yep, they had a note on my sevice history that I was not using "approved" motor oil even though they never said a word when I dropped it of with my own oil.
 
quote:

Originally posted by mikep:
Originally posted by 427Z06:
[qb]Correctomundo...but the 5w20 lovers keep pointing to these same UOAs as "PROOF"! I'm guessing you don't consider them as proof either?

I still would like to know whether you feel the 5w-20 performed more or less on par with the 30w oils based on those few comparos Crossbow posted.
Nothing?
 
mikep, sorry Dude, been busy. I was in a bad mood and shouldn't have posted. We're in general agreement. However I would prefer, "the data indicates...given the variables were loosely constrained", as opposed to "it is proven."
 
Folks, let's get a few things straight here. I'm not dissing the new "5w20" oils. In fact, if they meet Fords "5w20" spec, I think they're much better oils compared to the run of the mill "5w30" dinos, and are a bargain to boot. The point I object to, is, when some people point to an "unknown person'(s)" (i.e. not all the variables are controlled or acknowledged) UOA(s) that have been run in an engine of particular
design (Fords modular design concept) in somewhat difficult conditions traditionally, and then claim that these UOAs are "proof" that these oils are adequate under any and all conditions. In other words, what do you use in your 4.6 modular Ford when you're running it really hard under high temps? More MC 5w20? There isn't another choice to provide more protection? Or is MC 5w20 the ultimate protection even though your sump temperatures are 300F and your winding out on the back stretch bumping the RPM limiter?

If the people here are truly into optimising their oil selection, shouldn't we be talking more about oil chemistries and the cSt at the given temperature of operation given the engine design?
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:
mikep, sorry Dude, been busy. I was in a bad mood and shouldn't have posted. We're in general agreement. However I would prefer, "the data indicates...given the variables were loosely constrained", as opposed to "it is proven."

No prob at all and thanks. It's all good
cheers.gif
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top