Is 5W20 a CAFE oil or better technology?

[batterycar]

I just checked the Ford site in Germany. Sure enough, they recommend 5W-30 in the cars. They also recommend ~12,000 mile oil change intervals. I think this is proof positive that 5W-30 can be run in Ford engines without harm. Else, why would it be recommended in European cars?

I also think this suggests (but doesn't prove) that 5W-20 is recommended in America just to increase CAFE and keep the government happy.

 

[VaderSS]

quote:

---

Doesn't comparing 5w-20 to synthetic support the point that it's not ALL about CAFE, and 5w-20 is a better technology.

---

I thought most 5W20s were synth-blends anyway?

 

[ZiTS]

OK, I've read all the posts and would now like to put in my two-cents:

The problem I've had with Ford's switch to the 5w-20 oil is that they did it across the board for almost all (I think) of their engines at the same time (2001). I have a hard time believing a supercharged 4.6L DOHC rated conservatively at 390HP needs the same viscosity as a NA 2.0L DOHC Zetec putting out 130HP. If FoMoCo would have specified 5w-20 for some of its' engines, 5w-30 for some others, etc..., I'd have a much easier time believing my car really NEEDS the 5w-20. Different engines are built differently, go in different cars, are used for different purposes, and put out different HP/TQ. Why, then, should I believe that, magically on January 1, 2001, all of FoMoCo's engines suddenly required the same, lighter weight oil?! I have some manufacturing knowledge, and know for a fact they didn't change their entire engine assembly process "all-of-a-sudden".
It may be a good oil - I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying I feel it is absolutely spec'ed to help w/ CAFE, as FoMoCo is one of the top SUV/truck companies, and they needed to increase their overall MPG ratings somehow.

Z-

[ January 23, 2004, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: ZiTS ]

 

[mf150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drew99GT:
I don't think the "same" engines you all are talking about are made at the same plants to the same specs though. Are engines for Fords in Europe made in US plants? Or vice versa? Howevere, there ARE certain engines from various manufactureres that are made in the same plants and used in worldwide markets that spec different grades of oil. If I had a Ford or Honda, I would run 5w-20 with no hesitation because UOA has proven they are a great recipe, CAFE or not. I don't think we've seen any, or more than 1 or 2, bad UOA using 5w-20 in an engine that is speced for it.

---

You bring up a good point. The Ford vehicles made for California have a different emissions package than those for the rest of the United States. Why wouldn't there be a difference in another country. I'm sure Europe done't have the same emissions requirements that the U.S.A. has. Ford prob. contours their engines, timing, and other $hit for their requirements.

 

[mf150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by batterycar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Surprise:
Why does it matter what oil weight a car takes in another country?

---

(1) The original poster claimed that 5W-30 will harm a Ford engine.

(2) And yet in Germany, Ford engines (which are exactly the same design) are running 5W-30... as *recommended* by Ford.

(3) So this indicates that the original poster's claim was wrong. Running 5W-30 will NOT harm a Ford engine.


ASIDE: I also find it fascinating the Europeans are running 12,000 mile intervals!!! Holy crap! That certainly demolishes the Jiffy Lube "every 3000 miles" myth.

---

I didn't claim that 5W20 would harm my engine, but that a Ford service advisor, mechanic and Motorsport dude said that the clearnces changed in the 01+ 4.6L Mustang engine. He said that the thicker viscocity oil would possibly fail to lubricate the cams. in higher rpm applications.

I've been running 5W30 since my 03 was new, but I changed the other day b/c hearing this disturbed me.

I wanted to get to the bottom of this old debate and find some truth.

 

[mf150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by greencrew:
mf, good information here.

There was a thread last year that explained that american engines are made with the top ring located higher on the piston for US emissons. It runs hotter in that location which is harder on oil.

I find it interesting that dino 5w-30 takes such a beating in these discussions that big brother Mobil 1 5w-30 is brought in for support. Doesn't comparing 5w-20 to synthetic support the point that it's not ALL about CAFE, and 5w-20 is a better technology.

I'm looking forward to a UOA of 5w-20 in a truck towing a good size trailer. It seems that is the last myth to be address.

---

Good to see a f-150 brotha here!

 

[mf150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZiTS:
OK, I've read all the posts and would now like to put in my two-cents:

The problem I've had with Ford's switch to the 5w-20 oil is that they did it across the board for almost all (I think) of their engines at the same time (2001). I have a hard time believing a supercharged 4.6L DOHC rated conservatively at 390HP needs the same viscosity as a NA 2.0L DOHC Zetec putting out 130HP. If FoMoCo would have specified 5w-20 for some of its' engines, 5w-30 for some others, etc..., I'd have a much easier time believing my car really NEEDS the 5w-20. Different engines are built differently, go in different cars, are used for different purposes, and put out different HP/TQ. Why, then, should I believe that, magically on January 1, 2001, all of FoMoCo's engines suddenly required the same, lighter weight oil?! I have some manufacturing knowledge, and know for a fact they didn't change their entire engine assembly process "all-of-a-sudden".
It may be a good oil - I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying I feel it is absolutely spec'ed to help w/ CAFE, as FoMoCo is one of the top SUV/truck companies, and they needed to increase their overall MPG ratings somehow.

Z-

---

Very reasonable point.

Just for an update, I am re-filling my engine with the original 5W30 Red Line tomorrow. This is due to increased engine noise (don't know what the hell it is, but it is louder!).

Keep the debate going!

 

[mf150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VaderSS:
My main reason for feeling that 5W20 is motivated by CAFE is in the wording of the EPAs rules on running 5W20 for fuel economy trials;

quote:

---

EPA will approve the use of a GF-3 oil in test vehicles if the following conditions are satisfied:
1. Owner’s Manual Language. The manufacturer provides clear and unambiguous instructions in
the Owner’s Manual which identifying GF-3 non-synthetic engine oil of a specific viscosity grade
(e.g., 5W20, 5W30, 10W30) as the engine oil to be used under ambient temperature conditions likely
to be experienced during normal vehicle operation. It is appropriate for a manufacturer to specify the
use of a lower viscosity engine oil in extremely low ambient temperatures where the normally
specified oil may not flow adequately.
2. Labeling the Oil Filler Cap. The manufacturer clearly indicates on the engine oil filler cap, by
label or other permanently attached means, that GF-3 oil of a specific viscosity grade (e.g. GF-3
5W20) is to be used in the engine.
3. Limits on the Sum of 16-hour plus 96-hour Fuel Economy Improvement Factors. The engine oil
to be used in emissions and fuel economy test vehicles must have a combined fuel economy
improvement factor (using the ASTM Sequence VI-B (or its replacement procedure)) which does
not exceed the following limits:

GF-3 5W20 4.2%
GF-3 5W30 3.4%
GF-3 10W30 2.0%

The limits were calculated as the sum of the 16-hour and 96-hour limits plus 0.5 percent. The 0.5
percent was represented by the Alliance as covering about two standard deviations of the distribution
of fuel economy improvement rates measured by the ASTM procedures. EPA is setting these limits
because it is inappropriate for a manufacturer to select a significantly better oil for fuel economy
testing than the typical customer will be using in their vehicles.
4. Factory Fill Oil Requirements. The manufacturer uses GF-3 oil of the same viscosity rating as
factory fill in production vehicles. Furthermore, the fuel economy performance of the oils used as
factory fill must be equivalent or superior to the oils used in emission and fuel economy test vehicles.
5. Oils Available at Dealerships. The manufacturer supplies its dealers with GF-3 oils of the same
viscosity grade as used in the test vehicles or otherwise assures the use of the appropriate viscosity
grade GF-3 engine oil at dealerships. Furthermore, the fuel economy performance of the oils
supplied to dealers must be equivalent or superior to the oils used in emission and fuel economy test
vehicles.

1. Instructions to“Quick Change” Facilities and the Manufacturer’s Dealers to use 5W20 GF-3 Oils.
The manufacturer commits to do the following shortly after the start of the applicable model year:
a. Acquire from oil manufacturers and supply to EPA copies of materials that they supplied
to "quick oil change" facilities pertaining to the use of 5W20 GF-3 engine oil.
b. Provide EPA with copies of materials that the manufacturer sent to its dealers pertaining
to the use of 5W20 GF-3 engine oil in customer vehicles.

2. Follow-up Survey of 5W20 Oil Usage. The manufacturer commits to perform the following
either approximately two years after the use of 5W20 engine oil is approved by EPA, or immediately
prior to applying for 2004 model year certification:
a. Acquire from oil manufacturers and provide to EPA sales data of 5W20 and at least the
two highest-selling oils by viscosity grade (other than 5W20), promotional information
applicable to the use of 5W20 engine oil, and follow up letters of commitment for the
continued promotion of 5W20 engine oil; and
b. Acquire from oil manufacturers and provide to EPA the fuel efficiency data of their 5W20
and the highest-selling oils identified in a. above, relative to the reference oil as specified
in ASTM Sequence VI-B (or its replacement procedure). This information may be collected
and reported to EPA in conjunction with other vehicle manufacturers; and
c. Acquire and provide to EPA data on the retail prices of 5W20 and the highest selling oils
identified in a. above. Prices of non-synthetic, partial synthetic and synthetic oils are to be
included. This information may be collected and reported to EPA in conjunction with other
vehicle manufacturers.
This information will be used by EPA to determine whether approval of the use of 5W20 engine oil
should be extended beyond the 2003 model year.

---

If it were truly the best choice, I don't feel that they would have to make rules like that... Not saying it's not good, just not best.

---

Thanks for posting that. That is the kinda stuff I like to see.

 

[TallPaul]

I think the cam lube issue is more of a startup issue. Once the engine is running and warmed up the cam lube should not be a problem. Probably could go with even a 10w30 and add a preluber for security to ensure the cam gets lube quick on startup. As for me, I'll sick with the old tried and true cam in block design.

 

[batterycar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mf150:
a Ford service advisor, mechanic and Motorsport dude said that the clearnces changed in the 01+ 4.6L Mustang engine. He said that the thicker viscocity oil would possibly fail to lubricate the cams. in higher rpm applications.

---

That same car/engine is running 5W-30 in Germany. It will NOT harm your engine, else they would not recommend using it in the German engine.

 

[mf150]

I changed the oil back to Red Line 5W30 and what a difference! The engine is quiet once again.

 

[Ken2]

1) Ford and Honda both have their own specs for the 5W-20 which require it to pass more stringent testing than the usual GF-3, API-SL 5W-30.

2) The local county maintenance foreman puts 10W-30 in the sheriff's Crown Vic patrol cars, new and not-so-new. He's never had an engine failure, and the deputies drive like somebody else owns the car.... All the regional county foremen get together to share info, and all the counties that use 5W-20 in their Fords have had engine failures.


Ken

 

[Ray H]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mf150:
Are you sure it is the same specs.? As I mentioned above cars from Califonia are different than those made for other states. I would assume that those made for a different country would meet their requirments, too.

---

Keep in mind there are "specs", and, then, there are "specs". Since this discussion pertains to motor oils' level of protection, it seems to me the emissions equipment variation arguments from state to state or country to country are less relevant than whether the basic engine parts clearances or the degree or absence of component surface heat treating are the same across international borders. This has a direct bearing (no pun intended - honest!) on engine longevity as it relates to motor oil quality and viscosity.

 

[Mark in NY]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken2:
1) Ford and Honda both have their own specs for the 5W-20 which require it to pass more stringent testing than the usual GF-3, API-SL 5W-30.

2) The local county maintenance foreman puts 10W-30 in the sheriff's Crown Vic patrol cars, new and not-so-new. He's never had an engine failure, and the deputies drive like somebody else owns the car.... All the regional county foremen get together to share info, and all the counties that use 5W-20 in their Fords have had engine failures.


Ken

---

This is really interesting in light of all of the good UOA's posted from 5-20 and 0-20 users.
Do you have any specifics on the type of failures?

 

[JohnBrowning]

The heads and intake manifold have nothing to do with what viscosity of oil is speced! The torque spec also has nothing to do with viscosity!! THe only way a cam spec would change the HTHS needed for good protection would be if they reduced nose loading or decreased cam bearing clearance!

THe key factors for determineing an the minium HTHS is bearing clearance! All of the other parts can easily have their clearances reduced but their is a limit to how tight you can make bearing clearance.

If you look at the history of "20Wt" oils it is clear that they were C.A.F.E. rooted. GM had 20W20 and 5W20 years ago. It was in responce from the fuel embargo and new emission laws and peoples demand for better fuel ecconomy! To make a long story short it was a failure. You had a tone of sludged up motors and smokeing engine!! M1 was 5W20! THe term "Black Death" was developed to denote what happed to cars run on 20Wt oils!!

I realise that things have changed since then but it nothing under the sun can make an oil with an HTHS of 2.6 or 2.9 protect like an HTHS of 4.7!

 

[greencrew]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VaderSS:

quote:

---

Doesn't comparing 5w-20 to synthetic support the point that it's not ALL about CAFE, and 5w-20 is a better technology.

---

I thought most 5W20s were synth-blends anyway?

---

If they meet the Ford FoMoCo 153-H spec then yes it is a synth-blend. As I recall it is a heavy synth-blend with quite a bit of group III. Here are some good comments comparing 5w-20 to M1 0w-20.

quote:

---

HT/HS is directly related to bearing wear. M1 0W-20 is at 2.6. The absolute bottom of the range is 2.6 to make grade. The higher the number- the better. Engineers agree that 2.8 is the bar for "normal" engine wear. Does M1 contain less sulphurs and thereby produce less acids? No, it contains about 2400 ppm's of sulphur from the calcium and magn. sulphates used in the additive package. It will have a TAN (Total Acid Number) around 2.0. Most oils are at 0.5 or less. Less is better.

Is it a pure PAO basestock? No, it has mineral binders for the additive package. NO synthetic PAO available is PURE. PAO basestocks do not naturally want to mix with the additive packages. This is why the mineral oils are used for the binder. Do PAO basestocks have any conflict with seals? Seals are designed to be in oil. PAO basestocks do nothing for the seals therefore the seals don't swell as designed . This is why ALL PAO basestocks also contain esters to swell the seals just like dino oils do.

Synthetics are not "slicker" on any level but do have better pumpability rates( please, don't say flow as they are not the same), also provide better thermal protection against oxidation. They do not handle moisture as well as dinos so it is not for an engine that sees short trips or sits a lot. Because it has the pumping properties that it has, it does not provide a good residual coating on parts that have sat for awhile, like overnite in the cold. But it will get to the parts quicker in the cold than dinos.

Are there better synthetics out there? Yes, Redline would be at the top of the list if money is no problem for you. It has an HT/HS rating of 3.3 and has proprietary additives to make it "stick" to parts. Most Blends will also out rank M1 in this viscosity range.

---

 

[greencrew]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mf150:
Good to see a f-150 brotha here!

---

Small world (wide web). The oil knowledge base is a bit more robust over here.

 

[ZiTS]

The following was taken directly from the Mobil 1 webpage for their 0w-20 SuperSyn. Sorta blows a hole in the theory that it's a great oil for V-8 4.6L DOHC GT's, let alone a Cobra or pick-up:
"Mobil 1 0W-20 is the ideal product for high revolution and output four and six cylinder cars where a 0W-20 or 5W-20 viscosity lubricant is recommended."

Next, this quote was taken directly from the motor oil section of Quaker State's website:
"Everyone knows different engines perform differently. That's why Quaker State has created motor oils specifically formulated for different engine needs:"

Now, I'm sure there's a little bit of marketing at play here (especially on QS's part), but come on folks - don't these statements make you wonder why Ford REALLY made a blanket switch? Of course the mechanic at the FORD dealership said 5w-20 is needed! FORD signs his paycheck, and that's what FORD tells him to say!
Please don't think that I believe 20 weight oils are total junk. Actually, I just tonight bought some of the Mobil 1 0w-20 to try out in my Focus. All I ask is that you look at the big picture here, and use a little common sense when forming your conclusion - not as to whether or not Xw-20 is a decent oil, but whether or not it is absolutely necessary.

[ January 23, 2004, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: ZiTS ]

 

[geeeman]

From CAFE...

quote:

---

The penalties can be substantial. The fines are calculated at $5 per tenth of mpg below the target for each vehicle produced. The fines are collected by NHTSA...

---

From Ford...

quote:

---

For example, an automaker can increase the fuel efficiency of all of its vehicles, but, if it sells a higher number of large cars or trucks, its CAFE average may still decline. This means that full-line manufacturers like Ford that sell a significant number of full-size cars, pickups, minivans and SUVs have a significantly higher CAFE task than manufacturers that produce primarily smaller vehicles.

---

If a x20 weight oil can add, say 3/10 of an mpg to say, a 1 000 000 vehicles, that would be a savings of, $ 15 000 000 per year...

CAFE or better technology? I think the quest to save money (make more money) has led to a better oil that can perform ADEQUATELY within its chosen criteria, that being improved MPG.

Engine longevity no longer seems to be a priority. (If it ever was... see engineered obsolescence...)

 

[mf150]

quote:

---

Originally posted by batterycar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mf150:
a Ford service advisor, mechanic and Motorsport dude said that the clearnces changed in the 01+ 4.6L Mustang engine. He said that the thicker viscocity oil would possibly fail to lubricate the cams. in higher rpm applications.

---

That same car/engine is running 5W-30 in Germany. It will NOT harm your engine, else they would not recommend using it in the German engine.

---

Are you sure it is the same specs.? As I mentioned above cars from Califonia are different than those made for other states. I would assume that those made for a different country would meet their requirments, too.