New Pennzoil Platinum 0w20 SN PDS -2012

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: buster
What about the fact that Honda etc. consider 1qt per 1,000 miles acceptable Trav?

I always thought that was odd. Also, do you think breaking in the engine hard is better?


I find it odd too, and as the oils get "thinner" that 1,000 miles per qt acceptable limit might become even less. BTW I've heard some service depts say 600 miles is acceptable. If I bought a new car that burnt a qt of oil in a 1,000 miles they'd be buying it back.

 

[Trav]

I wonder how the EPA feels about engines burning almost as much oil as an old 2 stroke Trabi.
No wonder they had to lower zinc levels of they consider this "normal".

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I wonder how the EPA feels about engines burning almost as much oil as an old 2 stroke Trabi.
No wonder they had to lower zinc levels of they consider this "normal".

I know VW also claimed that one quart per 1000 mile is not out of norm and their 'fix' is to run 5w40 instead of correcting the piston-ring issue. Apparently MkIV 2.0 engines have 'always burned that much oil' and it's OK'd by the mfg. If you can burn more than that (of the 5w40) then all of a sudden it's no good and needs new rings.

 

[Trav]

They all have had their problems. Using thicker oil is a band aid at best but it many times does get them out of replacing engines under warranty.

IMO playing brew master at home to correct a design flaw in a new engine is just stupid, take it back and complain til their ears bleed.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: buster
What about the fact that Honda etc. consider 1qt per 1,000 miles acceptable Trav?

I always thought that was odd. Also, do you think breaking in the engine hard is better?


I find it odd too, and as the oils get "thinner" that 1,000 miles per qt acceptable limit might become even less. BTW I've heard some service depts say 600 miles is acceptable. If I bought a new car that burnt a qt of oil in a 1,000 miles they'd be buying it back.


Funny, all of my Volvos (which ran thicker oils, BTW) make similar claims of 800-1,000 per quart. This is hardly new and has nothing to do with thinner oils--and everything to do with OEM's engaging in CYA. But hey, if it fits the agenda of thin oil jihad, do let facts get in the way...

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: buster
What about the fact that Honda etc. consider 1qt per 1,000 miles acceptable Trav?

I always thought that was odd. Also, do you think breaking in the engine hard is better?


I find it odd too, and as the oils get "thinner" that 1,000 miles per qt acceptable limit might become even less. BTW I've heard some service depts say 600 miles is acceptable. If I bought a new car that burnt a qt of oil in a 1,000 miles they'd be buying it back.


Funny, all of my Volvos (which ran thicker oils, BTW) make similar claims of 800-1,000 per quart. This is hardly new and has nothing to do with thinner oils--and everything to do with OEM's engaging in CYA. But hey, if it fits the agenda of thin oil jihad, do let facts get in the way...


Sorry to hear you had that kind of consumption with your Volvos, it happens. In fact sometimes thinner oil within reason can help, did you try a thinner oil?

Jihad, hardly. Funny thing even my Aerostar with the rotted and patched oil pan used less oil than what these mfgs consider acceptable. Mfg making claims of using a qt of oil/1000 miles is nothing new, I wasn't born yesterday. In fact I used that line more than once with a few Honda's, Toyota's, and others that I sold in my car selling years. I had several people come back complaining a month or two later about all the oil they were burning in some of them. But we do agree on one thing here, the mfg is covering their arse.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
But hey, if it fits the agenda of thin oil jihad, do let facts get in the way...

No thin oil jhad. Regardless of what they spec 20w, 30w, 40w, etc they should be able to control the consumption rate and keep it to a minimum.
If they cant and need to spec thicker oil as a fix there is either something wrong with the design or materials or they spec's the wrong oil in the first place, take your pick.

If they don't change the design or materials from one year to the next but they change the oil from 30w to 20w and the engine goes through it like a 2 stroke you can bet the oil spec is incorrect for that engine.

In that case they should declare their mistake and back spec it to a 30w. Fat chance of that IMHO, they would prefer you live with the rolling frying pan.
It would provoke too many questions about other engines just like it does when they back spec stuff to 20w.

 

[bluesubie]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver


But would the M1 0W-40 still keep them within the warranty??

The BRZ manual is the same as some (or all) Toyota manuals that I've seen which allow thicker viscositites in severe driving conditions, although those viscosities are not defined.

Some of the Subaru manuals allow "5W-40 conventional" for replenisment only so it's probably fine. I just wonder if people are trying to find 5W-40 conventional. Maybe Pennzoil Ultra 5W-40 (to be semi-on topic).

-Dennis

 

[martinq]

Speaking of the BR-Z and such, I just had a look through the NA owners manual and it states:

"If your vehicle consumes more than 1.1 qt. (1.0 L, 0.9 Imp. qt.) every 600 miles (1000 km), contact your SUBARU dealer."

That really does cover their a$$ for any oil-consumption issues. Just point to the manual and send them on their way with a smile.

: )

 

[martinq]

Closer to the topic at hand, the owners manual has this to say about engine oil selection:

Oil Capacity
5.5 qt. (5.2 L, 4.6 Imp. qt.) - Without filter
5.8 qt. (5.5 L, 4.8 Imp. qt.) - With filter

Always use SUBARU approved engine oil. For details, we recommend that you contact your SUBARU dealer. If approved engine oil is unavailable, another motor oil of matching quality can also be used.

Oil grade: ILSAC multigrade engine oil
Recommended viscosity: SAE 0W-20

SAE 0W-20 is the best choice for good fuel economy and good starting in cold weather.

Oil viscosity (0W-20 is explained here as an example):
• The 0W in 0W-20 indicates the characteristic of the oil which allows cold startability. Oils with a lower value before the W allow for easier starting of the engine in cold weather.
• The 20 in 0W-20 indicates the viscosity characteristic of the oil when the oil is at high temperature. An oil with a higher viscosity (one with a higher value) may be better suited if the vehicle is operated at high speeds, or under extreme load conditions.

How to read oil container label:
The ILSAC (International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee) Certification Mark is added to some oil containers to help you select the oil you should use.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: buster
What about the fact that Honda etc. consider 1qt per 1,000 miles acceptable Trav?

I always thought that was odd. Also, do you think breaking in the engine hard is better?


I find it odd too, and as the oils get "thinner" that 1,000 miles per qt acceptable limit might become even less. BTW I've heard some service depts say 600 miles is acceptable. If I bought a new car that burnt a qt of oil in a 1,000 miles they'd be buying it back.




Funny, all of my Volvos (which ran thicker oils, BTW) make similar claims of 800-1,000 per quart. This is hardly new and has nothing to do with thinner oils--and everything to do with OEM's engaging in CYA. But hey, if it fits the agenda of thin oil jihad, do let facts get in the way...


Sorry to hear you had that kind of consumption with your Volvos, it happens. In fact sometimes thinner oil within reason can help, did you try a thinner oil?

Jihad, hardly. Funny thing even my Aerostar with the rotted and patched oil pan used less oil than what these mfgs consider acceptable. Mfg making claims of using a qt of oil/1000 miles is nothing new, I wasn't born yesterday. In fact I used that line more than once with a few Honda's, Toyota's, and others that I sold in my car selling years. I had several people come back complaining a month or two later about all the oil they were burning in some of them. But we do agree on one thing here, the mfg is covering their arse.


Honestly, I tried pretty much everything. My V70R drank oil no matter what. That said, it ran great, and it's still running well. Consumption never really changed, either. It was like that way since new. The guy who bought it from me is over 260K on it with no major engine repairs. That said, if he sells it to someone who doesn't check the oil, it'll be dead in 3 months...

I tried a thinner oil, and got low oil pressure. Castrol 0W30 and Delo 0W30 seemed to burn off the least, and I tried every A3 rated oil I could find.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Obos
Only the Asian manufacturers are largely not coming up with proprietary specs, although they are recommending their OEM high VI oil and Honda has a spec for turbos


True. The only one I can think that's actually a discrete specification would be the Honda turbo one. I do know that some manuals for Japanese diesels are also oddly picky about which oil to use.

Still, if the manufacturers are so concerned about VI, then come up with a spec. Otherwise, if someone wants to use PP, there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't see it that way.
The OEMs certainly value very high VI oils and of course recommend that you use their 0W-20, but there's no heavy hand like a threat invalidating your warranty if you don't that many OEMs do. Plus, in Canada anyway, they've priced their oil so competitively that it make no economic sense to use anything else.

 

[Garak]

True, but if they really wanted the stuff bad enough, a spec would be in order. However, offering the stuff at ridiculously low prices is pretty effective, too.

 

[CATERHAM]

Originally Posted By: Garak
True, but if they really wanted the stuff bad enough, a spec would be in order. However, offering the stuff at ridiculously low prices is pretty effective, too.

Exactly, there's nothing more effective than an economic incentive. Besides, it's a lot more endearing to your brand for the consumer if the recommended oils are more than competitively priced. I remember when the first OEM 0W-20s became available their was a lot of discussion as to whether the oil was really synthetic since it wasn't priced like a synthetic. Toyota finally issued a TSB that stated, yes the TGMO 0W-20 was a "full synthetic".
If Toyota, Mazda etc issued a manditory oil spec' then all the aftermarket oil formulators would be forced to use one of he limited number of Asteric type of very high VI PMA polymers at a greater cost to their current 0W-20 offerings. Not a good idea.
On balance I think what the Japanese OEMs are doing is the best approach.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
If Toyota, Mazda etc issued a manditory oil spec' then all the aftermarket oil formulators would be forced to use one of he limited number of Asteric type of very high VI PMA polymers at a greater cost to their current 0W-20 offerings. Not a good idea.


It would be a bit of a nightmare to navigate if their xw-20 spec were significantly different from Ford's.

 

[buster]

Does anyone know the performance level of Sustina 0w20, TGMO 0w20 and Mazda 0w20 in terms of the Seq IIIG/IVA/TEOST/NOACK volality ? It's hard to get data from these tests on any brand, let alone the ultra high vI 0w20's. You can get a good idea though from Pennzoil's IIIG comparions, Valvoline and Mobil's websites showing IVA/IIG performance graphs for their oils. They are not that specific, but give you an indication of the results. I wish we knew more about the 0w20's other than the ultra high viscosity index.

So the TGMO will flow faster at start up, but will it keep the piston rings as clean as Mobil 1 0w20 if the car and drains are pushed to extremes?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: buster

So the TGMO will flow faster at start up, but will it keep the piston rings as clean as Mobil 1 0w20 if the car and drains are pushed to extremes?


Good point. Data and facts would be nice to see.

 

[Trav]

It seems that high VI and thinner is all thats important on this board lately.
Base stocks and add packs are insignificant it seems.
Every time someone ask which oil is better one poster in particular pops of with "i would go with this one because of its high VI and its thinner".

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: buster
Does anyone know the performance level of Sustina 0w20, TGMO 0w20 and Mazda 0w20 in terms of the Seq IIIG/IVA/TEOST/NOACK volality ? It's hard to get data from these tests on any brand, let alone the ultra high vI 0w20's. You can get a good idea though from Pennzoil's IIIG comparions, Valvoline and Mobil's websites showing IVA/IIG performance graphs for their oils. They are not that specific, but give you an indication of the results. I wish we knew more about the 0w20's other than the ultra high viscosity index.


I'd like to know this info as well, since Nippon Oil tech will NOT get back to me on this (NOACK), and I can't even reach Idemitsu USA to ask them about this, and ALL of the other 'official PDS' specs for their GF-5 0W-20 with moly.

ANYONE have Idemitsu USA's tech line number

, as the email does not seem to even go through, let alone them ever answering it!

 

[CATERHAM]

dailydriver, you already got the NOACK figure of the Sustina 0W-20 which is 13%. I suspect it's 13-14% for all of the OEM 0W-20s. I don't think it is technically possible to formulate a very high light 0W-20 oil that use a 4cSt base oil with a NOACK percentage much below that.

One main reason PP 0W-20's NOACK figure is low is because they are using a heavier base oil in it's formulation, at least 6cSt I would think.