Nissan VQ35 -> Different Oil Recommendations In Europe vs. N.A.???
- Thread starter il_signore97
- Start date
- Status
Member "Patman" is a German Castrol fanatic, he's near Toronto. He should be able to tell you where it can be found in Ontario.
In any event, the Amsoil or Esso XD-3 should do nearly as well.
I would consider useing Amsoils S3K 5W30. It is a tad more viscus and has excellent HTHS numbers. It will still give great fuel consuption. It is much more robust then the S3K as it is intended for use in diesel applications as well as petrol applications. I would try the S3K 5W30 before I tried a 40Wt. from Amsoil. Do not get me wrong I am a huge fan of 5W40 but the S3K is a great oil and is the next step up from what you are currently running. I would try this first especialy with winter approaching!
Ron AKA,
Yes, we have PartSource here. I will check that out tomorrow (it is near my work). Are you sure it is authentic GC 0W30? (I've never seen it before, so I wouldn't even know what it looks like)
John in the ATL,
Thanks for the alternative. I've heard a lot about the Esso 0W30, but I don't know much about it. Is it a group IV/V, or a III?
427Z06,
Thanks... Now I know who to P.M. if I can't locate any GC here in T.O.
JohnBrowning,
That's a great tip about the Amsoil HDD Series 3000. I didn't even think of it! I should add that to my proposed test! Looks like I've got my work cut out for me.
BTW, I was not intending on using 5W40 in the winter months. I was only wanting to try it for the summer. I think regardless of whether I choose Amsoil AFL 5W40 or Amsoil HDD S3K 5W30 for the summer, I will definately stick with a 0W30 for the winter (like my current Amsoil S2K TSO 0W30, GC 0W30, or Esso 0W30).
(I guess if I end up liking the GC, I can use that all year round since it's pretty thick at operating temps but still a 0Wx. That probably goes for the Esso as well I'm guessing...)
I find myself in very cold weather on many occasions when I head up north on my skiing trips throughout the winter! And when I venture up there, the car does not have the shelter of my garage, and sits outside in temps as low as -40 C. Thus, I want a 0Wx oil to give me the lowest possible CC viscosity for the best protection in cold starting.
Thanks...
Yes, we have PartSource here. I will check that out tomorrow (it is near my work). Are you sure it is authentic GC 0W30? (I've never seen it before, so I wouldn't even know what it looks like)
John in the ATL,
Thanks for the alternative. I've heard a lot about the Esso 0W30, but I don't know much about it. Is it a group IV/V, or a III?
427Z06,
Thanks... Now I know who to P.M. if I can't locate any GC here in T.O.
JohnBrowning,
That's a great tip about the Amsoil HDD Series 3000. I didn't even think of it! I should add that to my proposed test! Looks like I've got my work cut out for me.
BTW, I was not intending on using 5W40 in the winter months. I was only wanting to try it for the summer. I think regardless of whether I choose Amsoil AFL 5W40 or Amsoil HDD S3K 5W30 for the summer, I will definately stick with a 0W30 for the winter (like my current Amsoil S2K TSO 0W30, GC 0W30, or Esso 0W30).
(I guess if I end up liking the GC, I can use that all year round since it's pretty thick at operating temps but still a 0Wx. That probably goes for the Esso as well I'm guessing...)
I find myself in very cold weather on many occasions when I head up north on my skiing trips throughout the winter! And when I venture up there, the car does not have the shelter of my garage, and sits outside in temps as low as -40 C. Thus, I want a 0Wx oil to give me the lowest possible CC viscosity for the best protection in cold starting.
Thanks...
il_signore97,
Your alternative choice to GC is Esso XD3 0w-30. The oil is very similar in specs to GC and is inexpensive. I believe that it is available through Esso "bulk dealer" in Canada. Like GC, it is not an API "energy conserving" oil.
Unfortunately, this oil is not availble in the States.
Your alternative choice to GC is Esso XD3 0w-30. The oil is very similar in specs to GC and is inexpensive. I believe that it is available through Esso "bulk dealer" in Canada. Like GC, it is not an API "energy conserving" oil.
Unfortunately, this oil is not availble in the States.
"the reason heavier oils are recommended in Europe is because the Europeans are confused. They think heavier oil is better and without any CAFE to challenge their thinking, they continue to put molasses in their engines."
The people of Europe are not the ones making the heavier oil recommendations in their owners manuals. Those owners manual recommendations are made by the manufacturers of the vehicles sold in Europe. Why the manufacturers recommend heavier oils for some vehicles in Europe than the 20 weight oil that they recommend for the same vehicles when sold in the US is of course open to debate, and has been hotly (and well) debated on this site. But you can't explain away the difference by insulting the Europeans by saying that they are confused. I'll bet that they are just as motor vehicle knowledgable as Americans.
I have yet to see an adequate and proven explanation for the manufacturers' recommending, for many vehicles, 20 weight in the owners manuals for vehicles sold in the US and a heavier weight in the manuals for the same vehicles when sold outside of the US. The BEST explanation I've seen is that its done to satisfy US CAFE requirements. Yet, at the same time, the 20 weight is NOT recommended in the owners manuals for the same vehicle elsewhere. I find this highly suspicious. I'm amazed by the unthinking trust and faith that many BITOG'ers put in the recommendations of an industry with a long, and proven, track record of deceiving the purchasers of its products and of putting unsafe, and often shoddily built, products on the market.
It you're going to rely on CAFE to challenge your thinking as to whether you should run a 20 weight or a heavier weight oil, then YOU are the one that's confused. Because CAFE deals solely with MPG of gas obtained with the various weights of oil. CAFE has nothing to do with which oil weight is BEST for the vehicle. And of course it could well be that you get the extremely minimal extra MPG documented from the use of 20 weight at the expense of using an oil that's not as good for the engine as a heavier weight.
I'm well aware of the positive UOA's on vehicles run for 100,000 mi. or more on 20 weight. But that doesn't mean that the engine would not have been in even better shape had it been run on 30 weight. I think that we need more time to answer the questions many people have raised about the possible problems of 20 weight and need a lot more proof in regard to a lot more miles on a lot more different engines. In the meantime, I remain skeptical and will run the 30 weight that Ford used to recommend in my 03 Ranger for which it has since 02 recommended 20 weight.
Finally, a 30 weight oil is nowhere near as thick as molasses, and anyone who asserts that it is has never poured a 30 weight.
The people of Europe are not the ones making the heavier oil recommendations in their owners manuals. Those owners manual recommendations are made by the manufacturers of the vehicles sold in Europe. Why the manufacturers recommend heavier oils for some vehicles in Europe than the 20 weight oil that they recommend for the same vehicles when sold in the US is of course open to debate, and has been hotly (and well) debated on this site. But you can't explain away the difference by insulting the Europeans by saying that they are confused. I'll bet that they are just as motor vehicle knowledgable as Americans.
I have yet to see an adequate and proven explanation for the manufacturers' recommending, for many vehicles, 20 weight in the owners manuals for vehicles sold in the US and a heavier weight in the manuals for the same vehicles when sold outside of the US. The BEST explanation I've seen is that its done to satisfy US CAFE requirements. Yet, at the same time, the 20 weight is NOT recommended in the owners manuals for the same vehicle elsewhere. I find this highly suspicious. I'm amazed by the unthinking trust and faith that many BITOG'ers put in the recommendations of an industry with a long, and proven, track record of deceiving the purchasers of its products and of putting unsafe, and often shoddily built, products on the market.
It you're going to rely on CAFE to challenge your thinking as to whether you should run a 20 weight or a heavier weight oil, then YOU are the one that's confused. Because CAFE deals solely with MPG of gas obtained with the various weights of oil. CAFE has nothing to do with which oil weight is BEST for the vehicle. And of course it could well be that you get the extremely minimal extra MPG documented from the use of 20 weight at the expense of using an oil that's not as good for the engine as a heavier weight.
I'm well aware of the positive UOA's on vehicles run for 100,000 mi. or more on 20 weight. But that doesn't mean that the engine would not have been in even better shape had it been run on 30 weight. I think that we need more time to answer the questions many people have raised about the possible problems of 20 weight and need a lot more proof in regard to a lot more miles on a lot more different engines. In the meantime, I remain skeptical and will run the 30 weight that Ford used to recommend in my 03 Ranger for which it has since 02 recommended 20 weight.
Finally, a 30 weight oil is nowhere near as thick as molasses, and anyone who asserts that it is has never poured a 30 weight.
I find it hard to believe that CAFE is not one of Nissan's factors for making different recommendations. It seems too coincidental.
Ron, I appreciate what you're saying about CAFE and fuel economy, and I've already read that Shell paper on thinner oils, but I'm not really looking for the "best" fuel economy if it comes at the expense of engine protection. I'm interested in the lowest wear as I intend to keep my car for quite a long time, and I put a large amount of mileage on it every year.
[ September 11, 2006, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: il_signore97 ]
Ron, I appreciate what you're saying about CAFE and fuel economy, and I've already read that Shell paper on thinner oils, but I'm not really looking for the "best" fuel economy if it comes at the expense of engine protection. I'm interested in the lowest wear as I intend to keep my car for quite a long time, and I put a large amount of mileage on it every year.
[ September 11, 2006, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: il_signore97 ]
I agree with going for the lowest wear as well as the best fuel mileage. They may not be mutually exclusive. Better fuel mileage is the result of lower friction losses in the engine. It stands to reason that lower friction losses could also mean less wear. It does mean you have more HP (slightly, just the same as the mileage is slightly better). Of course some will argue and rightly so that that may not be true for the whole engine. An yes, with thinner oil friction losses are reduced in the journal bearings, piston rings, and the the piston skirt area. They do increase in the valve train, but the net net is less friction overall.
So there is some concern about the valve train. This is mitigated to some degree by more modern engines which may have 4 valves per cylinder (reduces loading and contact stresses), and roller followers. If one does not have these features in your engine, it may be worth considering whether or not you want the thinner 20 wt oil.
While I don't want to risk starting up a 20 wt vs. 30 wt debate or anything like that, I do think that this discussion is pertinent to the topic of the Euro VQ specs vs. the N.A. VQ specs, so I'll continue with my thoughts...
Ron, while it cannot be argued that a thinner oil reduces internal friction and thus provides better fuel economy, I don't think the correlation with wear is so straightforward.
The friction we're talking about here is intrafluid friction - not friction from engine parts rubbing together (assuming hydrodynamic lubrication mechanism). So, while a thinner oil does reduce intrafluid friction, it may not reduce wear. And while a thicker fluid, being more viscous, increases intrafluid friction, it will not necessarily increase wear. Intrafluid friction has much more to do with heat generation than wear.
My thought is that with a thinner oil, under high loads and hard driving in hot weather, there is more chance of metal to metal contact than with thicker oils. Mind you, one cannot go too thick, otherwise a film may not be able to form in between parts as the oil won't "fit" where it's supposed to. Also, too thick of an oil will not flow due to overpressure and will simply be dumped back into the sump.
Having said that (and back to the original topic of discussion), when a manufacturer specs a thin oil in one country, and a thicker oil in another, some thoughts come to mind. The thickest oil they spec for their engine MUST "fit" into all of the journals and areas requiring lubrication, or it would not have been spec'd in the first place. It must be pumpable and flow correctly within the temperature range provided. Going with a thinner oil would increase fuel mileage, reduce intrafluid friction, and reduce heat, but will not necessarily reduce wear, and may actually increase it under certain circumstances due to a thinner lubricating film.
Ron, while it cannot be argued that a thinner oil reduces internal friction and thus provides better fuel economy, I don't think the correlation with wear is so straightforward.
The friction we're talking about here is intrafluid friction - not friction from engine parts rubbing together (assuming hydrodynamic lubrication mechanism). So, while a thinner oil does reduce intrafluid friction, it may not reduce wear. And while a thicker fluid, being more viscous, increases intrafluid friction, it will not necessarily increase wear. Intrafluid friction has much more to do with heat generation than wear.
My thought is that with a thinner oil, under high loads and hard driving in hot weather, there is more chance of metal to metal contact than with thicker oils. Mind you, one cannot go too thick, otherwise a film may not be able to form in between parts as the oil won't "fit" where it's supposed to. Also, too thick of an oil will not flow due to overpressure and will simply be dumped back into the sump.
Having said that (and back to the original topic of discussion), when a manufacturer specs a thin oil in one country, and a thicker oil in another, some thoughts come to mind. The thickest oil they spec for their engine MUST "fit" into all of the journals and areas requiring lubrication, or it would not have been spec'd in the first place. It must be pumpable and flow correctly within the temperature range provided. Going with a thinner oil would increase fuel mileage, reduce intrafluid friction, and reduce heat, but will not necessarily reduce wear, and may actually increase it under certain circumstances due to a thinner lubricating film.
Yes, those are all good thoughts. The wear tests however are verifying that the thinner oils work. Keep in mind that the viscosity difference between a 20 and 30, expecially when you consider the allowable tolerances, is very small. With the heavier oil more HP goes into heat and potentially in localized areas the actual running viscosity of both grades may be the essentially the same, with the temperature being the difference. The 20 wt running cooler than the 30? Just further thoughts.
With respect to the wild differences quoted for the same engines, I don't think there is a tremendous amount of science behind it other than the valve train design. Those Shell tests for fuel efficiency were run on engines which were not specially built for thin oil. The reality is that engines are quite tolerant to our personal preferences for oil weight.
^...well worded response. Thanks again.
Next summer, I will probably still conduct some runs of different viscosities along with UOA's purely out of curiosity. I think it would be interesting to see. I'll post them up in the UOA section when the time comes.
Just as a side note: Do you think that back-to-back UOA's using different products/viscosities will be accurate enough, or should I definately include a "flush" fill first before actually doing a UOA on each oil?
Oh, and I checked out the Partsource near my work, and I think I've found the GC 0W30. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's just a normal bottle of 0W30 Syntec with the words "Made in Germany" on the back, right? And from what I understand, it's not green anymore, but gold, correct? Given Terry's recommendation, I will likely give that a shot when my supply of Amsoil S2K 0W30 is up.
Next summer, I will probably still conduct some runs of different viscosities along with UOA's purely out of curiosity. I think it would be interesting to see. I'll post them up in the UOA section when the time comes.
Just as a side note: Do you think that back-to-back UOA's using different products/viscosities will be accurate enough, or should I definately include a "flush" fill first before actually doing a UOA on each oil?
Oh, and I checked out the Partsource near my work, and I think I've found the GC 0W30. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's just a normal bottle of 0W30 Syntec with the words "Made in Germany" on the back, right? And from what I understand, it's not green anymore, but gold, correct? Given Terry's recommendation, I will likely give that a shot when my supply of Amsoil S2K 0W30 is up.
Yes that's all it takes to be GC. I've used the GOld GC in a G35 Coupe for 3 oil changes and the switch bug has got me so I'm trying Syntec 10W-30 next. Blashphemy? No, just an experiment to see if power or fuel economy rises; also curious if the small but noticeable oil consumption will increase. Might try a 0W-40 or 5W-40 oil in it after that.
I have no experience with auto UOA analysis, so take this with a grain of salt (well don't put it in the oil!). I know from electrical transformer oil and gas analysis that sampling technique is extremely critical. Without insulting the pros too much I would take it like you do a urine analysis for the medical labs....midstream, not too early or too late!
With respect to flushing, I can see how it feels good, but really I think a total waste of time and money.
Lets say for example your engine contains 4 liters of oil, and when you drain it, 200 ml are left in the engine. This means you have a 5% contamination of the new oil with the old. Then lets say some wear metal is typically 10 ppm. If on the next oil change the oil is so good that it reduces this wear metal in half, what would you really get when you did the test? So you should see in your next UOA a value of 5, but because of this contamination it will be raised by 5% of the extra 5 ppm, or .25 ppm, for a total of 5.25 ppm. I would suggest this difference is much much lower than the error of the UOA measurements.
Flushing in my view has a meaning beyond the literal, and can extend to the wallet.
Ron, I didn't mean flushing with new oil and draining immediately. Let me clarify...
My current oil is Amsoil 0W30. Say, next summer when I want to start my tests, I take a sample of the Amsoil 0W30 when I change the oil. Then, I fill with GC 0W30 for example. I would leave that in for the full OCI...
Now, at this point, should I simply drain the GC, fill with GC again, and then do the UOA after the second OCI with GC, or can I simply do the UOA after the first OCI with GC? (What I'm getting at is would the left-over Amsoil 0W30 skew OAI results from the first fill of GC???)
Hope that clarified the question. I have done numerous UOA's before, so I'm good with regards to the sampling procedure. I am just not sure about the accuracy of testing back-to-back products for comparison purposes.
My current oil is Amsoil 0W30. Say, next summer when I want to start my tests, I take a sample of the Amsoil 0W30 when I change the oil. Then, I fill with GC 0W30 for example. I would leave that in for the full OCI...
Now, at this point, should I simply drain the GC, fill with GC again, and then do the UOA after the second OCI with GC, or can I simply do the UOA after the first OCI with GC? (What I'm getting at is would the left-over Amsoil 0W30 skew OAI results from the first fill of GC???)
Hope that clarified the question. I have done numerous UOA's before, so I'm good with regards to the sampling procedure. I am just not sure about the accuracy of testing back-to-back products for comparison purposes.
"...because the Europeans are confused."
I think that definition is more applicable to the vast majority of posters on this board, myself included, rather than the poor Europeans.
BTW Ron, the paper in your link doesn't mention why the Europeans who are so big on CO2 emissions and Kyoto agreement, somehow are still ignoring the easiest and simplest way to improve fuel economy=emissions reduction by following the CAFE guidelines?
[ September 13, 2006, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: avette ]
I think that definition is more applicable to the vast majority of posters on this board, myself included, rather than the poor Europeans.
BTW Ron, the paper in your link doesn't mention why the Europeans who are so big on CO2 emissions and Kyoto agreement, somehow are still ignoring the easiest and simplest way to improve fuel economy=emissions reduction by following the CAFE guidelines?
[ September 13, 2006, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: avette ]
This one was more of a mineral vs synthetic issue rather than a particular grade issue.
I understand and my response would be the same. If there is going to be a difference in performance of the oil that is going to happen within a minute or two of starting the engine after you change the oil. The only issue will be the extent of contamination of the new oil with the oil, and that happens every oil change. In thinking over the example I gave it probably is going to be a bit more than what I said, but not much. I should have used the contamination factor as the difference between a dry fill and a normal drain and refill. Still you are only going to get a few % error and it really is going to be insignificant. I recall someone posted UOA results for the same oil sample sent to two different labs. The difference was much more than what you are going to see from change to change contamination.
Being as you live in Toronto and if you want to run a heavier oil, go with Esso XD3, 0w30, PAO full synthetic and run it year round. As the bank commercial says ..."save your money."
I have been running the XD3, ow30, in my 95 Maxima since February and plan to run it year round with 12-month OCI as I only drive about 8,000 mostly highway kilometres/year.
I have been running the XD3, ow30, in my 95 Maxima since February and plan to run it year round with 12-month OCI as I only drive about 8,000 mostly highway kilometres/year.
- Status
Similar threads
