New Civic - Oil recommendations

[Don Stefanik]

I have installed the 5W20 in my Ranger and yes it is a great oil.
Might as well put it in my daughters Civic. It's just that she is a ways away and doesn't get home often enough for me to keep an eye on it. But I guess she will be home more often than 6 months

She sure is liking the car.
On another note.........I went to the license burrow to get her old Grand Am put into my name so I could at least get some money out of it by driving it for the rest of the year. New muffler, new tires a year ago......she just filled it with gas...etc. etc.
Anyways.....I was going to have to get it saftied...emmision tested and then go to the town hall and have a Notery sign off that she is giving it back to me no cost.
THE **** THING IS NOT WOTH IT!!!!!!!!
Go# Dan# goverment rules!!!!!!!!!!
Anyways.......I took it to the bone yard and got some cash for it.
Good riddence!!!

 

[reyjay1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Wan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ray H:
The 5w30 viscosity range relies less on VIIs than 5W-20 to maintain viscosity when hot.

---

Ray,
I thought it was the opposite.

5w-20s use fewer VIs due to the lesser span???

Besides, Honda switched to 5w-20 if I recall correctly, due to the better flow and faster heat displacing.

Besides, aren't thinner oils more solvent?

Michael

---

Michael,

Ray H has it right and you have it backwards and I'll provide the proof shortly. I do not know who started this "spread" nonsense but we can put an end to it now for good. If you take the viscosity numbers posted by ZoomZoom for the various Mobil 1 grades and plot them on a viscosity versus temperature chart, you will find that the oil with the flatest curve or least drop off in viscosity for given temperature rise is the 0W-20 grade. As you would expect, if you graph these on a logarithmic plot, the "curves" become quite linear and the plot that is most horizontal is 0W-20. Now, given the same type of basestocks, all BITogers should know that the oils with the least drop off in viscosity with temperature tend to have more VI additions. The 0W-20 grade is even flatter than the 15W-50 (35 point spread) indicating more propensity towards VI additions in the low "spread" oil....thje opposite of what you thought. Now let's take two oils with a 20 point "spread" as you would say Mike, the 0W-20 and the 10w30. At 0C, the 10w30 is 69% more viscous than the 0W-20 but at 100C, it is only 19% more viscous. What does this say Mike? IT says that at cold temperatures, the 0W-20 is way thinner but at high temperatures, it is not very much thinner indicating a much higher VI addition propensity despite having the same "Spread". The oils that don't thin out nearly as drastically have more VI propensity and that grade is 0W-20. I invite you to make the graphs and dispel the "spread" nonsense for yourself. In fact, a recent post by 1 FMF shows this effect also for Mobil 1 but only at high temperatures above 190F. The 0W-20 shows a higher Viscosity Index type behaviour as I said myself. It is more pronounced however throughout a wider temperature range like 0C to 100C.

Regards,
Stephanie

---

Stephanie, You have every exactly right as far as Viscosity Index goes, but Ray specifically said Viscosity Index Improvers, and due to basestocks, 0-20 probably relies on less VII's while having a higher VI. a high VI does not automatically mean an oil has to have more VII's, there are different ways to get there.

 

[Stephie]

Reyjay,

Do you want to talk facts or do you want to stretch it into the unknown zone and make up nonsense just to be disagreeable? All of these GF-3 Mobil 1 oils were PAO based. So what do you mean by "due to basestocks, the 0W-20 probably relies on less VII"? What factual basis do you have for your beliefs that (other than your own will to disagree and be self-deluded): :

A)The 0W-20 grade had much higher VI basestocks than the other grades and.....

B)The other grades like 5w30, 10w30 had any VII to begin with at all?

It is believed by many and probably true that there were no VI improvers or negligible amounts in the 10w30 and 5w30 grades. Your logic is poor, how can the 0w-20 rely on less VII(even though it's viscosity/temp curve is much flatter) when there may not be any at all in the other grades to begin with. So with your brilliant logic, now we are to believe that oils with the same basestock types and flatter viscosity temperature curves have less tendency to contain VII.........brilliant!!! You've got it completely backwards mate ........ completely. Logic dictates that if any Mobil 1 grade had VII, it was 0W-20. THe only way around it would be to use a lot more SuperSyn which would not be a very cost effective way to get such a higher VI.

Stephanie

 

[Thatwouldbegreat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by uconn1150:
Ugh! It simply depends. Thin? Thick? It's probably one of the greatest debates here at BITOG. CAFE has done a lot over the past few years and now everyone is confused? There is an older post here where Honda USA says to use 5w-20, but Honda Europe says to use 40w/same with Honda Australia. The poster even scanned the manual? IS viscosity truly important? As Guru Terry will tell you, ANALYZE your oil! Only then you will know.

As for my JDM Honda B16 in Hotter than Heck Texas, it enjoys Schaeffer's 15w40. It revs very freely all the way up to 7800 rpm...bouncing off the rev-limiter...LOL...I did run some 10w30 during my Auto-RX phase and I did not see/feel any difference when I went to 15w40.

Don't worry, when it blows up because of the thicker oil, I will post pictures, however my analysis paints a different picture. Now I know.

---

I'm running Mobil 1 0W-20 at 7K OCI with Pure One filters in our 2004 Element 2.4L. Seems to run real well, near zero oil consumption and great performance.

If I was driving in Europe at higher speed or in Australia presumably with higher temperatures, I'd look at 0W-40 or 5W-40.

 

[Thatwouldbegreat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thatwouldbegreat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by uconn1150:
Ugh! It simply depends. Thin? Thick? It's probably one of the greatest debates here at BITOG. CAFE has done a lot over the past few years and now everyone is confused? There is an older post here where Honda USA says to use 5w-20, but Honda Europe says to use 40w/same with Honda Australia. The poster even scanned the manual? IS viscosity truly important? As Guru Terry will tell you, ANALYZE your oil! Only then you will know.

As for my JDM Honda B16 in Hotter than Heck Texas, it enjoys Schaeffer's 15w40. It revs very freely all the way up to 7800 rpm...bouncing off the rev-limiter...LOL...I did run some 10w30 during my Auto-RX phase and I did not see/feel any difference when I went to 15w40.

Don't worry, when it blows up because of the thicker oil, I will post pictures, however my analysis paints a different picture. Now I know.

---

I'm running Mobil 1 0W-20 at 7K OCI with Pure One filters in our 2004 Element 2.4L. Seems to run real well, near zero oil consumption and great performance.

If I was driving in Europe at higher speed or in Australia presumably with higher temperatures, I'd look at 0W-40 or 5W-40.

If I was in Las Vegas or Hotter than Heck Texas, I look at xW-30 and xW-40 synthetics and an oil cooler or capacity upgrade, especially if I was hauling heavy loads or driving the snot out the motor all the time.

But even in the high temp environments, if I was driving the speed limit and revving the motor to near redline only for acceleration I would not worry about using a top rated xW-20

---

 

[The Critic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephie:
Michael,

Ray H has it right and you have it backwards and I'll provide the proof shortly. I do not know who started this "spread" nonsense but we can put an end to it now for good. If you take the viscosity numbers posted by ZoomZoom for the various Mobil 1 grades and plot them on a viscosity versus temperature chart, you will find that the oil with the flatest curve or least drop off in viscosity for given temperature rise is the 0W-20 grade. As you would expect, if you graph these on a logarithmic plot, the "curves" become quite linear and the plot that is most horizontal is 0W-20. Now, given the same type of basestocks, all BITogers should know that the oils with the least drop off in viscosity with temperature tend to have more VI additions. The 0W-20 grade is even flatter than the 15W-50 (35 point spread) indicating more propensity towards VI additions in the low "spread" oil....thje opposite of what you thought. Now let's take two oils with a 20 point "spread" as you would say Mike, the 0W-20 and the 10w30. At 0C, the 10w30 is 69% more viscous than the 0W-20 but at 100C, it is only 19% more viscous. What does this say Mike? IT says that at cold temperatures, the 0W-20 is way thinner but at high temperatures, it is not very much thinner indicating a much higher VI addition propensity despite having the same "Spread". The oils that don't thin out nearly as drastically have more VI propensity and that grade is 0W-20. I invite you to make the graphs and dispel the "spread" nonsense for yourself. In fact, a recent post by 1 FMF shows this effect also for Mobil 1 but only at high temperatures above 190F. The 0W-20 shows a higher Viscosity Index type behaviour as I said myself. It is more pronounced however throughout a wider temperature range like 0C to 100C.

Regards,
Stephanie

---

Steph,
I probably am (as most around here are) can sometimes be incorrect when it comes to the more technical aspects of oil design around here.

I just saw your message and will go make the charts in Excel now and post 'em a bit later when I get a chance.

If I am indeed found to be incorrect, I stand corrected.

Michael

 

[Gurkha]

Don't know if it will apply to you, on my 94 Accord V6, I used M-I 15W-50 in summers and 10w30 in winters, car lasted me 500,000 miles before I gave it to my friend and he is still using that car. Used M-I in the transmission too.

 

[dave1251]

For the 0w-20 debate please chime in our blender on the forum bruce.

 

[reyjay1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephie:
Reyjay,

Do you want to talk facts or do you want to stretch it into the unknown zone and make up nonsense just to be disagreeable? All of these GF-3 Mobil 1 oils were PAO based. So what do you mean by "due to basestocks, the 0W-20 probably relies on less VII"? What factual basis do you have for your beliefs that (other than your own will to disagree and be self-deluded): :

A)The 0W-20 grade had much higher VI basestocks than the other grades and.....

B)The other grades like 5w30, 10w30 had any VII to begin with at all?

It is believed by many and probably true that there were no VI improvers or negligible amounts in the 10w30 and 5w30 grades. Your logic is poor, how can the 0w-20 rely on less VII(even though it's viscosity/temp curve is much flatter) when there may not be any at all in the other grades to begin with. So with your brilliant logic, now we are to believe that oils with the same basestock types and flatter viscosity temperature curves have less tendency to contain VII.........brilliant!!! You've got it completely backwards mate ........ completely. Logic dictates that if any Mobil 1 grade had VII, it was 0W-20. THe only way around it would be to use a lot more SuperSyn which would not be a very cost effective way to get such a higher VI.

Stephanie

---

" So with your brilliant logic, now we are to believe that oils with the same basestock types and flatter viscosity temperature curves have less tendency to contain VII."

Here is where I think you go wrong. There are many different synthetic base stocks and the ones that are used in a 5w30, 0w30, will be different than a 0w20, or they may be of the same type in diferent proportions. We have seen that there are different quality of synthetic basestocks as well, so it may be that no-one can make blanket statements based on viscosity alone, you would have to know the brand and or type of formulation used in both to make a true qualitative statement. If we talk strictly M1, I would seriously doubt either formulation has much if any VII's in them, but only an ExM chemist will know for sure. All I am saying is do not fall into the trap of solely using VI and V charts in tryng to determine what the formulation may be.

 

[reyjay1]

PS. a 0w20 has the same vis. spread to cover as the 10w30, and the 5w30 has a 25 point spread to cover. However a base 20 weight sythetic may be able to be labled as a 0w20 all on its own. The 10w30 and 5w30 maybe able to do this also in the pure sythetic version but has to start with the slightly thicker basestock. Each has its own distinct curve, and it happens that the 20 weight has a flatter V curve hence the higher VI number though they are still both pure synthetic base stocks.

 

[reyjay1]

LINK
A quote of Bruce just made on PAO sythetics and amount of VII 's used in 30weight multi's , hopefully he can comment on this thread too and let me know if I have it wrong.

 

[Stephie]

Hey Guys,

I'm going to both defend and put the heat on "BITOG Bob" himself here. His blanket statement about "spreads" is an overgeneralization that is easily proven wrong in the case of Mobil 1 GF-3 (make the graphs and see for yourselves). His statement should have had some qualifiers in it. If one of the two numbers is the same and the oils in comparison use the same API basetock type, then it is far more likely his statement about spreads is true. With GF-3 M1, he's not even close. Also, he and the rest of you guys failed to mention that two oils with a 0W rating can have quite different cold end viscosities like GF-3 Mobil 1 0w20 and 0W-40 M1 for example. The 0W-40 is way thicker than 0W-20 on the low end and is even thicker than the 5w30 at 0 degrees C. The best way to look at viscosity-temperature characterisitcs is not to be a simple minded clown who listens to sometimes incorrect overgeneralizations. The only technically sound way is to simply plot the viscosities on a graph with a large temperature spectrum. With given basetock types, flatter behavior is produced by adding VII to the lubricant or using higher VI basetocks and thus the two qualifiers above are most apt for the correct version of BITOG Bobs over-generalization. I hope he reads this so he can see the dangers of talking in terms that are way too general without clarifying qualifiers.

Now, getting back to the particular case of GF-3 Mobil 1, I am totally aware that not all finished PAO basetocks have the same VI. I am also aware that the finished bastock is often a blend of two or more sub-basestocks with individual viscosities/molecular sizes. Is it possible that the 0W-20 achieves it super flat viscosity-temperature behavior by simply having much higher VI basetocks than the 10w30 grade.........? the answer maybe yes but is it likely............the answer is probably no!!!!! I think it would take a financially restrictive high volume of Super or Ultra Syn to make the curve this flat but I'm no basestock expert!!! In fact, the over-generalization says I'm just another dumb blonde much more likely to look at the make-up mirror in my car than the oil change sticker on the windshield.

Stephie

 

[The Critic]

Stephie,
What do you do for a living?

Where did you receive your knowledge regarding motor oils?

MW

 

[Stephie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Wan:

Stephie,
What do you do for a living?

Where did you receive your knowledge regarding motor oils?

MW

---

Mike,

I work as an engineer in the electric power generation field. I don't know very much about lubricants and I've certainly learned a good bit just watching this board for a year or so. However, as this thread itself indicates, listening to poor overgeneralizations and failing to take the time look at real data can lead to poor conclusions.

On one hand, such a board is great and on the other, one person can state a piece of misinformation and then 28,478 people around the world believe it without verification. The concept that 0W-20 and a 10w30 lubes will demonstrate similar viscosity-temperature behavior (in terms of how much they thin out for given increases in temperature) due to having the same "spread" in SAE grade numbers is simply obnoxious and can be way off base as demonstrated with GF-3 M1. Likewise is the concept that a 5w30 grade will demonstrate less thinning with temperature rise than a 0W-20 due to having a higher 25 point spread. With GF-3 M1, the opposite is true. The 0W-20 has some super duper out of this world high VI basestocks or they simply threw in some VII which is probably not present in the other grades (except for the 0W-40 perhaps).

I have not looked at numbers for the 5w20 conventional oils, but I would expect similar behaviour. Again, these oils tend to be much thinner at low temperatures but not too far off at high temperatures which is way indicative of either using a high amount of VII or using better VI basetocks.

I suspect in most cases, it is some of each. I believe the suppliers are putting in a higher percentage of higher VI API group III basetocks in these 5W-20 grades. We believe this was the case with the Motorcraft version and hence the semi synthetic blend lable. However, I still would not be surprised if many of these oils had higher amounts of VII than their higher "spread" 5w30 cousins. Oxidative thickening can often balance and mask VII depletion via permanent sheardown.

Also, BTW, there was a recent question about the fuel economy savings from using the 20 wt oils. Again, a look at the oh so valuable viscosity-temeprature charts tells us a lot. The big viscosity differences are apparent when the lube is cool and during the warmup process. We're talking hundreds of centistokes of difference when cold but only 2 to 5 when hot. Obviously, those who make short trips are going to see the biggest fuel economy increases and those who drive 75 miles per trip will see the least.

Best Regards,
Stephie

Removed Word

[ August 29, 2005, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]

 

[darryld13]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephie:
~SNIP~
So what do you mean by "due to basestocks, the 0W-20 probably relies on less VII"?

~SNIP~

---

Bob's quote on why syns and narrow spreads rely on less VII

 

[bruce381]

Stephie
You cover so much I do not know where to start. Is this whole discussion on the amount of VII in a 5/20 versus a 5/30?

If so both start out with a light base stock like a GPII 4cst or a PAO #4. The base stock MUST be thin in order to meet the CCS numbers. Even with Synthetic base stocks to thick will not pass the CCS.

So as I make them and most blenders do we will blend a GPII with 4-5%VII for a 5/20 a 5w30 will take 6-7% VII and as such the 5w30 will show a higher VI. If I wanted to blend 5w30 with the same VII% but use a 3-4 cSt thicker base stock blend most lilkey it would not pass as a 5w30 but would slide up to a 10/30 make sense?

Also GPII and GPIII as well as PAO are used for higher VI which means less VII is needed to be used compared to GPI but also GPI will not pass the volitlity spec of GF-3m and now GF-4 which is more strigent.
bruce

 

[slickfisher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SWS:
I have an '03 Civic 1.7L VTEC that I bought new. I changed the factory-fill at 3900 miles to Mobil 1 5w30. I change the oil & filter every 6 months. I now have 14K miles. Here in Tennessee we have 4 full seasons and I am pleased with this oil year-round (this car is always parked outside). I have read in various places that the Civic engine does not like thick oil and I tend to agree - it has a long stroke for a 4-Cyl so it will not idle well on thick oil, and it is a high-revving engine and thick oil will not let it rev freely. However, I have had no issues with Mobil 1 5w30 (GF-4, SM) in that regard, in any weather.

Best Wishes as you motor along!

---

That's interesting. Most high reving engine's are oversquare. That means the bore is bigger than the stroke. I would be interested in those specs. But by all means stay within the mfg. specs.

 

[Bio-T]

Holy smokes, our Board members have been Hoodwinked again. Our dear Stephie is really Member #6480 and Board name 1911. He was obvious because of his condescending remarks to other members and BITOG. He made those type remarks before as 1911 and is now making them as Stephie. I guess he/she had a quick trip to the doctor for an identity problem.

 

[AndyH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 59 Vetteman:
Holy smokes, our Board members have been Hoodwinked again. Our dear Stephie is really Member #6480 and Board name 1911. He was obvious because of his condescending remarks to other members and BITOG. He made those type remarks before as 1911 and is now making them as Stephie. I guess he/she had a quick trip to the doctor for an identity problem.

---

And I guess you've banned both "1911" and "Stephie"?

 

[SWS]

Hi slickfisher!
I have my '03 Civic Owner's Manual in front of me. All '03 Civics have:
Bore: 2.95" = 75.0mm
Stroke: 3.72" = 94.4mm
Displacement: 102 cu-in = 1668cc

The EX model has the VTEC head and higher compression ratio, but the other specs are the same.

So this is a long-stroke high-revving engine. This was a surprise to me also.