Honda Pilot Oil specs US vs Overseas
- Thread starter parshisa
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by Nickdfresh
Originally Posted by Oildudeny
Its a shame we need 0w20 because of CAFE regulations.
Why? How do you know it's not superior in many ways. Again, Europe has a different "long drain" mentality than we do. They also pay a lot more for a 5L jug than we do...
How do you know anything ?
It could be that which is specified for the gimbal joints on the hubble telescope...and no-one can ever DENY that it's the oil used on those joints...because they can't possibly know..eh ???
How do I "know anything?" Says the guy second-guessing actual engineers... How do YOU know anything?
Originally Posted by Nickdfresh
Originally Posted by Oildudeny
Its a shame we need 0w20 because of CAFE regulations.
Why? How do you know it's not superior in many ways. Again, Europe has a different "long drain" mentality than we do. They also pay a lot more for a 5L jug than we do...
How do you know anything ?
It could be that which is specified for the gimbal joints on the hubble telescope...and no-one can ever DENY that it's the oil used on those joints...because they can't possibly know..eh ???
How do I "know anything?" Says the guy second-guessing actual engineers... How do YOU know anything?
Originally Posted by parshisa
Pulled this manual for a 2016 Honda Pilot (that my wife drives here in US) and sure thing several different grades other than 0w20 are OK for this 3.5 engine. Again, for those in doubt whether 0w20 is prescribed due to "tight tolerances" or for any other reason (CAFE). Hope this helps
Why do we keep getting these same US-vs.-overseas posts over and over again?
Does anywhere in the US manual say that grades thicker than 0W-20 shouldn't be used?
More importantly, haven't you still learned that if there are multiple viscosity grades recommended, the optimal viscosity grade is the thinnest one for highest fuel economy, highest horsepower, lower bearing temperatures, better oil circulation, etc.? A thicker viscosity would be only needed if you are towing or operating under extreme speeds/loads.
Pulled this manual for a 2016 Honda Pilot (that my wife drives here in US) and sure thing several different grades other than 0w20 are OK for this 3.5 engine. Again, for those in doubt whether 0w20 is prescribed due to "tight tolerances" or for any other reason (CAFE). Hope this helps
Why do we keep getting these same US-vs.-overseas posts over and over again?
Does anywhere in the US manual say that grades thicker than 0W-20 shouldn't be used?
More importantly, haven't you still learned that if there are multiple viscosity grades recommended, the optimal viscosity grade is the thinnest one for highest fuel economy, highest horsepower, lower bearing temperatures, better oil circulation, etc.? A thicker viscosity would be only needed if you are towing or operating under extreme speeds/loads.
CAFE violations results in fines that are in the 10's of million dollars range per year, and higher when some of the manufacturers had to restate their cars' fuel consumption. BMW, Hyundai, Mazda, etc, all had to restate some of their cars within the last 10 years. The manufacturers' efforts to reduce consumption (therefore reduce fines) gave us, among other things:
1) the low tension piston rings that caused severe oil consumption problems in many cars.
2) problematic cylinder management systems (Honda 3.5L V6, GM V8, etc).
3) the very low rpm shift programming of automatic transmissions.
4) widespread direct injection deployment that isn't perfected for long term reliability.
5) 0w-20 oil requirements in the US is only a small part of it.
The car makers have to specify the exact operating condition used in the fuel consumption claims to their customers, therefore 0W20 is specified in the US. Outside the US, car makers are free to specify grades that provides better benefits at the expense of a slight (imperceptible to me) penalty in fuel consumption. 0W20 is fine for most of the US drivers, who never really stress their cars much. Those who wants a little more safety margin, take their cars to the track, and/or knowledgeable enough can select their own oil grade. The manufacturers' recommendation other than 0w20 outside the US is just another confirmation point that it's OK to use something else.
So everyone can be happy doing what they want to do with oil.
1) the low tension piston rings that caused severe oil consumption problems in many cars.
2) problematic cylinder management systems (Honda 3.5L V6, GM V8, etc).
3) the very low rpm shift programming of automatic transmissions.
4) widespread direct injection deployment that isn't perfected for long term reliability.
5) 0w-20 oil requirements in the US is only a small part of it.
The car makers have to specify the exact operating condition used in the fuel consumption claims to their customers, therefore 0W20 is specified in the US. Outside the US, car makers are free to specify grades that provides better benefits at the expense of a slight (imperceptible to me) penalty in fuel consumption. 0W20 is fine for most of the US drivers, who never really stress their cars much. Those who wants a little more safety margin, take their cars to the track, and/or knowledgeable enough can select their own oil grade. The manufacturers' recommendation other than 0w20 outside the US is just another confirmation point that it's OK to use something else.
So everyone can be happy doing what they want to do with oil.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by tig1
Originally Posted by Oildudeny
Its a shame we need 0w20 because of CAFE regulations.
CAFE does not require 0-20 oils.
No, as previously discussed ad nauseum...
CAFE sets economy requirements.
CAFE/NHTSA acknowledge that low viscosity lubricants are the least cost option for achieving economy.
CAFE requires that IF a manufacturer chooses that (least cost) path t achieve their requirements, that they must take "every practicable method", including not providing "ambiguous" owners manuals to ensure that the oil that the car was complied with remains the service fill.
So, clearly CAFE DRIVES the direction, while not requiring 0W20.
They don't require pizza cutter tyres either do they ???
CAFE has greatly helped MPG numbers in the US, and else where. My 2017 Ford Fusion 2.5 NA engine helps the Fusion to get 34-37 MPG on the hyw, while performing very well. I use 0-20 because it lubricates very well, helps with cold stars, engine sounds great. Yes, 0-20 oils are not required by CAFE.
Originally Posted by tig1
Originally Posted by Oildudeny
Its a shame we need 0w20 because of CAFE regulations.
CAFE does not require 0-20 oils.
No, as previously discussed ad nauseum...
CAFE sets economy requirements.
CAFE/NHTSA acknowledge that low viscosity lubricants are the least cost option for achieving economy.
CAFE requires that IF a manufacturer chooses that (least cost) path t achieve their requirements, that they must take "every practicable method", including not providing "ambiguous" owners manuals to ensure that the oil that the car was complied with remains the service fill.
So, clearly CAFE DRIVES the direction, while not requiring 0W20.
They don't require pizza cutter tyres either do they ???
CAFE has greatly helped MPG numbers in the US, and else where. My 2017 Ford Fusion 2.5 NA engine helps the Fusion to get 34-37 MPG on the hyw, while performing very well. I use 0-20 because it lubricates very well, helps with cold stars, engine sounds great. Yes, 0-20 oils are not required by CAFE.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Does anywhere in the US manual say that grades thicker than 0W-20 shouldn't be used?
This is what Ford states in the manual for our '14 Fusion:
Quote
Your engine has been designed to use Motorcraft engine oils or equivalent oils that meet Ford's oil specification. It is also acceptable to use an engine oil of recommended viscosity grade that meets API SN requirements and displays the API certification mark for gasoline engines.
They only mention (1) viscosity. Yes, it clearly says "recommended" but for 9 out of 10 people, they don't know, myself included, what other viscosity is okay to use. I know Castrol used to put on the 5W-20 Magnatec bottles that you can use 0W-20 in place of 5W-20. I do know that in Ireland, among other places, Ford actually lists 0W-20 and 5W-20 as acceptable oils to use but for the same car and same engine in the US, they don't list both. Why ? IMO, because of fuel economy rules.
Does anywhere in the US manual say that grades thicker than 0W-20 shouldn't be used?
This is what Ford states in the manual for our '14 Fusion:
Quote
Your engine has been designed to use Motorcraft engine oils or equivalent oils that meet Ford's oil specification. It is also acceptable to use an engine oil of recommended viscosity grade that meets API SN requirements and displays the API certification mark for gasoline engines.
They only mention (1) viscosity. Yes, it clearly says "recommended" but for 9 out of 10 people, they don't know, myself included, what other viscosity is okay to use. I know Castrol used to put on the 5W-20 Magnatec bottles that you can use 0W-20 in place of 5W-20. I do know that in Ireland, among other places, Ford actually lists 0W-20 and 5W-20 as acceptable oils to use but for the same car and same engine in the US, they don't list both. Why ? IMO, because of fuel economy rules.
The biggest reduction I've seen in fuel economy was with a speed reduction...the 2nd biggest with reduced engine capacity. Oil viscosity is not even a blip compared to the other options....but they are not an option are they ?
If the engine has such tight tolerances it would be required to completely heat to operating tempature prior to start up.
Originally Posted by Shannow
OK, explain it's superiority "in many ways"...
You claimed that we don't know but it may be superior in many ways...a little bit of a specious claim isn't it ?
No I didn't, I made no such claim. I asked a rhetorical question mocking those here that pretend to have some innate knowledge...
OK, explain it's superiority "in many ways"...
You claimed that we don't know but it may be superior in many ways...a little bit of a specious claim isn't it ?
No I didn't, I made no such claim. I asked a rhetorical question mocking those here that pretend to have some innate knowledge...
Originally Posted by Silk
The biggest reduction I've seen in fuel economy was with a speed reduction...the 2nd biggest with reduced engine capacity. Oil viscosity is not even a blip compared to the other options....but they are not an option are they ?
It's interesting you still have oils branded as "Gulf Western". Here it's just Gulf and they seem to be pretty good...
I see that Gulf Western was originally a US corp that folded in 89', they just clipped the name.....
The biggest reduction I've seen in fuel economy was with a speed reduction...the 2nd biggest with reduced engine capacity. Oil viscosity is not even a blip compared to the other options....but they are not an option are they ?
It's interesting you still have oils branded as "Gulf Western". Here it's just Gulf and they seem to be pretty good...
I see that Gulf Western was originally a US corp that folded in 89', they just clipped the name.....
Originally Posted by Silk
The biggest reduction I've seen in fuel economy was with a speed reduction...the 2nd biggest with reduced engine capacity.
When the US gov't does fuel economy ratings, it's a somewhat controlled environment. I thought I read that the "highway" portion of the test is driving around and around on a racetrack and not exceeding 55 mph (a typical posted highway speed). If they test a Honda Accord at 55 mph and a Toyota Camry at 45 mph, that's not a fair comparison.
In the real world, absolutely going slower provides higher fuel economy. In my wife's Fusion with a 1.5L Ecoboost engine, I can get 38-39 mpg by going 55 mph but at that speed, you are in fear of getting rear-ended on the highway ! If I go 75-80 mph, it drops to 29-31 mpg.
Smaller engine capacity doesn't always increase mpg though. Sometimes they stay the same with a bigger or smaller engine. Moving the same vehicle, that smaller engine has to work harder, decreasing MPG, for instance.
The biggest reduction I've seen in fuel economy was with a speed reduction...the 2nd biggest with reduced engine capacity.
When the US gov't does fuel economy ratings, it's a somewhat controlled environment. I thought I read that the "highway" portion of the test is driving around and around on a racetrack and not exceeding 55 mph (a typical posted highway speed). If they test a Honda Accord at 55 mph and a Toyota Camry at 45 mph, that's not a fair comparison.
In the real world, absolutely going slower provides higher fuel economy. In my wife's Fusion with a 1.5L Ecoboost engine, I can get 38-39 mpg by going 55 mph but at that speed, you are in fear of getting rear-ended on the highway ! If I go 75-80 mph, it drops to 29-31 mpg.
Smaller engine capacity doesn't always increase mpg though. Sometimes they stay the same with a bigger or smaller engine. Moving the same vehicle, that smaller engine has to work harder, decreasing MPG, for instance.
Originally Posted by Nickdfresh
Originally Posted by Shannow
OK, explain it's superiority "in many ways"...
You claimed that we don't know but it may be superior in many ways...a little bit of a specious claim isn't it ?
No I didn't, I made no such claim. I asked a rhetorical question mocking those here that pretend to have some innate knowledge...
And similarly, mine was rhetorical that we don't know that it's not the gimball oil for the hubble...so why the response you made ?
Originally Posted by Shannow
OK, explain it's superiority "in many ways"...
You claimed that we don't know but it may be superior in many ways...a little bit of a specious claim isn't it ?
No I didn't, I made no such claim. I asked a rhetorical question mocking those here that pretend to have some innate knowledge...
And similarly, mine was rhetorical that we don't know that it's not the gimball oil for the hubble...so why the response you made ?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
