Honda and the 5W-20 Myth

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by james1:
I have an engine that calls for 5W-20. I have been using this oil since I purchased the vehicle last July and I have enjoyed watching the debate. In looking at the manufacturers/engines requiring this oil it seems that there may be a common theme and that is OHC engines. My Ford 4.6L is a SOHC with hydraulic chain tensioning and valve lifters. With multiple functions required of the oil and the fact alot is going on in the top end of these engines, it may be that flow/pumpability has been elevated in importance. Sort of like the multiple functions transmission oil must perform. I believe most of Ford's lineup is OHC and same with Honda. I have seen the statement repeatedly that the oil appears to be great for engines calling for this oil. I would tend to agree and maybe expand it to some OHC engines from previous model years. I am certainly no engine expert, but that's my 2 cents.

---

That's an interesting theory, and frankly, one I had not considered. Yes, oils do perform to some extent as hydraulic fluid. Most dedicated hyd fluid is like (or is) ATF, i.e. thin like a 20wt oil, which would support your theory. On the other hand, my Toyota V-6 is a DOHC design and its "VVT-i" variable valve timing function is entirely dependent upon oil pressure to actuate its mechanical components, and it seems to run fine on 5w-30 and 10w-30 (and one fill of 0w-30). Of course, I haven't tried a 5w-20 in it, so I really don't know if would work better with that grade. Since Toyota does not spec 5w-20, I'm not inclined to try that experiment for a good while yet.

[ April 21, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]

 

[yugrus]

There is an interesting difference in tendencies between North America and Europe. Americans go for thinner oils and shorter drain intervals, Europeans widely use 40 or 50W oils, and 10,000mi interval is pretty much common recommendation, with a tendency to increase. I'm talking about the common brands and models of European and Asian cars. The only visible difference is the fuel- high octane in Europe. And usually smaller engines. Does it make any difference for the oil recommendation?

 

[bottgers]

For as little as is known about 5W-20's compared with 5W-30's, we do know that of the two, 5W-20's suffer much less from viscosity breakdown. While some of you may get a warm fuzzy from 5W-30's because they've been around forever, they are actually at a disadvantage in terms of maintaining their viscosity.

 

[G-MAN]

5w30's have been around forever? I must be getting old. I still remember well when Detroit first started shipping their cars with this grade back in the mid-80's.

 

[Dr. T]

I don't think OHC is the reason...that's all Europe has used...and the same with Aus. using 20-50 in everything from pushrod Chevy's to Porsche's...

 

[MNgopher]

As to the question why one brand (out of the many, many choices availible to you) would say specifically not to use in vehicles that don't call for it (5w20 that is), you can sum the reason up in one word: lawyers. With one simple CYA statement, they take any and all finger pointing off their product in instances where it isn't specified.

No matter how much evidence is ever produced on the whether a 5w20 actually works, there are always going to be people to whom no amount of evidence is ever enough and are convinced that sombody is hiding all the horror stories. We still have a boatload of people on this board convinced that dino 5w30 will destroy an engine if used. That debate has only been going on since the late 80's when specifying 5w30 became common. I've run several motors out to over 150,000 and 200,000+ miles using nothing but dino 5w30, but I giess I'm the exception or I'm just lucky

Oh - nobody required you to use Firestone tires if you owned an Explorer. Heck, you even had an option to not get the Firestone tires and get Goodyears instead. You were also free to change the tires to something else the second you took ownership. I guess my point is that the tire analogy was not a good one.

 

[STSinNYC]

427Z06: Why are all these other 5W-20 UOAs bad? Why wouldn't UOA's from a comparable engine driven in comparable conditions be somewhat relevant, as one point of data? I'm not claiming other people's UOAs are the complete answer, but they do provide relevant data.

What you seem to be saying are that UOAs are not a valid measure of oil performance. What would be then? Since you're not willing to accept UOAs as valid data, what data then would you use to make your case that semi-syns or full syns would be better in sustained hot weather conditions?

I'm not critcizing, I'm just trying to understand how you are drawing your conclusions. Thanks, S.

 

[bottgers]

I realize UOA's aren't going to tell you 100% of what you need to know about how good or bad a particular oil is, but short of running the same type of oil in your engine for the life of that engine, it's the only oil testing method we have. I tend to rely on UOA's. I've used them for years and I've never experienced an engine failure or any oil related problems.

BTW, I don't know what brand of 5W-20 you're referring to that has the warning, but I use Pennzoil's and it doesn't come with that warning.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by G-Man II:
This was relevant since you were using the relative "newness" of 5w20 as one of your major points. That being the case, the fact that 5w20 is not a "new" grade of motor oil at all is extremely relevant.

---

The best we can do is agree to disagree on this point.

The "old" 5w20s were strictly dinos, the kinda' old M1 5w20 was full syn, and the "new" 5w20s are what I would call semi syns, all with different API certifications. Different oils, in my opinion, regardless of the viscosity classification. I try to be careful to identify the basestock, or at least dino/semi-syn/syn origins when I mention a viscosity classification or at least the brand of oil. Looking back at my post, I believe I was making a clear distinction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by G-Man II:

Also, most of what you listed regarding modern engines, i.e., PCV, unleaded gas, and 190 degree thermostats, actually put LESS stress on oil than the open crankcase ventilation systems, leaded gas, and 160 degree thermostats used in the "old days."

---

I never stated whether it put more or less stress on the oil. I only mentioned it to illustrate that engines were different back then. And frankly, this type of nitpicking is bordering on betty bickering, and useless to learning anything new here.

 

[jthorner]

You know, when 5W-30 "Energy Conserving" oils came out there were conversations all over motordom just like this one.

John

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jthorner:
You know, when 5W-30 "Energy Conserving" oils came out there were conversations all over motordom just like this one.
John

---

Yes, I remember it well. But by then, I was already using mostly full syns in all my cars.

 

[Bror Jace]

No time to get completely caught up with all that's been said but keep in mind, all you 5W30 fans that in dino form, this stuff shears down quite easily. Many at the 2,000 mile mark have sheared down to a 5W20.

Oh, and I tend to believe the UOAs we've seen to date. No reason not to believe they aren't representative of most cars on the road.

--- Bror Jace

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:
Oh, and I tend to believe the UOAs we've seen to date. No reason not to believe they aren't representative of most cars on the road.

--- Bror Jace

---

I don't disbelieve the UOAs, but I take them with a little cautionary grain of salt or two. Those who: 1) bother to sample and test their oil, and 2) come to a discussion forum like this care waaaay more about their cars than the average citizen does. That certainly doesn't invalidate individual data points, but it does suggest some caution in drawing global conclusions from the results as a whole (applicable to all oil grades and brands, I hasten to add).

 

[bottgers]

So which oil testing method would say is best to use for drawing conclusions?

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bottgers:
So which oil testing method would say is best to use for drawing conclusions?

---

Any method that does a reasonable job of collecting samples from across the motoring public as a whole, so that we're just as likely to see what's happening inside a neglected sludgepacker engine, as we are to see what's up with our supermaintained cars. Might be a nice project for students to tackle in an academic setting. They could, for example, seek samples randomly from cars brought in to oil change shops, go door-to-door offering to exchange little incentives (coupons, small money, etc.) in exchange for six ounces of their oil, or perhaps do the same in a shopping center parking lot. Each donor would be asked to supply basic info such as oil type (if known...), age, age of car, etc. Obviously, perfect randomness would be an elusive target, but almost any degree of "outreach" is going to give a better "real world" picture than the samples drawn from the BITOG collection of oil-a-holics

will.

 

[geeeman]

After reading the EPA article, one thing stood out... Fuel economy is mentioned too many times to count...


Engine longevity is NOT mentioned even once....??

Just a thought.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

To the contrary. All the hoops the car mfg. had to go through in regard to having 5W-20 oil available about everywhere, shows that there was NO BS! IF the companies wanted to use 5w20 oil for their testing to get whatever benefits they felt they could from this lighter weight oil, then they had to make sure, to the best of their ability, that 5W20 oil had a good chance of being mainstreamed, by dealers, retailers and consumers (technical advancement ..whatever).

Seems like a whole lot of trouble for almost zero benefits....unless it does work..

---

"On the contrary" ..I read this as PURELY a CAFE move. Ford has always done whatever it has had to to allow them to sell the gas guzzling Lincolns and Crown Vics. They sold millions of Escorts at a loss just to reach the CAFE numbers and have done the same with all the successors. The "hoops" that they went through, as you refer to them, prove to me that this is a stretch to achieve some advantage to them ..not to the consumer.


..and as far as UOAs go...

Show me one that has actually gone the OEM OCI. No one here even does that with virtually any oil ..regardless of weight.

...or do we only have a collection of "severe duty" drivers here? Strange odds

 

[crashz]

There are other ways to increase fuel economy though. Why hasn't Ford put electric cooling fans in their lines of trucks? This would yeild a nice solid 2-3 mpg on their worst offender's while only raising cost maginally.

I really think the light weight oil was developed not only to save a little fuel, but also flow better in the engine. The lighter weight oil can move faster and pressure drops will be less in crucial areas, allowing more even flow rates through out the engine. Higher flow rates mean less sludge build up and more even engine temperatures. This is especially important in the heads, where ususlly the flow is mearly a dribble. Slow moving oil has the chance to sit in the head and cook. More even temps allow high overall operating temperatures and better power and economy.

My theory on this is kind of primative since the idiot gauges on Fords are useless:
I've always used and Xw-30 in my truck, mostly because in 2001 it was difficult to find 5w-20. And I didn't trust it. Up until my last change the truck would ping slightly at mild throttle input when fully warm. It did this basically since I bought it new. I've gone through all of the emissions components looking for the problem. Nothing solved it. And since the manual says that mild pinging from the engine is normal during acceleration, I've disregarded it. But I changed to 5-20 Royal Purple and I haven't heard the ping yet. Its not the oil brand, because 5w-30 RP pings. Its been in for about 2000 miles and I've noticed a very slight improvement in fuel economy, a lot more noise from the engine, but no pinging. I need a oil temp guage (or at very least a real water temp guage) to prove my theory.

[ April 26, 2004, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: crashz ]

 

[DJ]

On the mechanical/electric fans thing, there are still people who don't trust electrics even though they have been around awhile, that is at least my theory.

 

[MNgopher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:


..and as far as UOAs go...

Show me one that has actually gone the OEM OCI. No one here even does that with virtually any oil ..regardless of weight.

...or do we only have a collection of "severe duty" drivers here? Strange odds

[/QB]

---

Go ahead - look up my UOA's. I'm running 6000 mile OCI's on Havoline 5w20 (manfacturer OCI is 3,000 severe, 5,000 normal)...