Oil and MPG

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Zaedock
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Why are you using 5W-20 instead of 0W-20? Give Toyota 0W-20 SN (made by ExxonMobil) a try. You will definitely see an improvement over Pennzoil Conventional SN 5w20, especially when the oil gets used. It will also offer better protection than Pennzoil conventional.


Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I was pointing out that you cannot draw any conclusion about the effect of oil on MPG from these values.



???


It must boggle some to consider the possibility that an old school "obsolete" 10W30 could perform better than a superior 0W20.


Glad I'm not the only one to spot his total bias toward Toyota 0w20 and his outrageous claims about it.

 

[Dominic]

I think Gokhan means "ultra low viscosity"

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Sonataman
I fill at the same station, same pump, same gas, E-0 90 octane, of which I don't know if 'pure' gas gets the summer/winter treatments.

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure there is a difference between winter and summer gas, irrespective of grade. There is up here, at least. In your neck of the woods, of course, I have no idea. Regardless of summer/winter gas, I wish I was getting Georgia weather right now.

Originally Posted By: Sonataman
Check out this link. Seems for dino to pass the standard it had to beat a pao syn.

True, but which PAO synthetic is the reference oil? I'm assuming that the 5w30 PAO reference oil that had to be beaten obviously wasn't SL/GF-3. It's a little dodgy to require that a motor oil seeking to receive SL/GF-3 certification must beat an SL/GF-3 PAO 5w30. The standard cannot definite itself in terms of itself.

This is where we need someone with real experience in this field (Mola, where are you?) to untangle this.

In any case, winter or summer gas, your experiences are interesting. I'd maintain you're going to have difficulty pinning down causation. Regardless of the cause, enjoy the savings. I routinely beat Environment Canada (and U.S. EPA) estimates on my Town Car, just based on trying different driving habits. And no, I didn't cheat because Canadian gallons are larger; I know how to convert.

If your mileage is good, stick with what you're doing. Something is working, be it the gas, your oil choice, or your driving habits. It's certainly better than having your mileage go down the toilet and then trying to find a cause.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
One day you may get 50 MPG but the next day you may get 40 MPG because you did something slightly less optimal in your driving.

The best I ever got was over 40 mpg once in my Town Car. I had a 50 mph tail wind that day. Now, you don't want to see the mileage figures I got on the return trip that day. Driving the brick into a 50 mph headwind didn't do my consumption any favours, to say the least.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Sonataman
Check out this link. Seems for dino to pass the standard it had to beat a pao syn.

True, but which PAO synthetic is the reference oil? I'm assuming that the 5w30 PAO reference oil that had to be beaten obviously wasn't SL/GF-3. It's a little dodgy to require that a motor oil seeking to receive SL/GF-3 certification must beat an SL/GF-3 PAO 5w30. The standard cannot definite itself in terms of itself.

Yes, the reference oil used in API fuel-economy tests is a PAO base stock. However, it doesn't have any friction modifiers in it. In fact, chances are that it has no additive package at all.

Therefore, it's not that they are testing Mobil 1 or Amsoil against conventional oils. They are using a pure PAO base stock with little or no additives in it.

PAO oils do have lower coefficient of surface friction than Group III, which still has lower coefficient of surface friction than Group II+, and so on. However, friction modifiers play a huge role in determining the surface friction and the base oil's inherent surface friction plays a smaller role.

Note that hydrodynamic friction is determined by HTHS viscosity. Surface friction mostly affects the valvetrain and hydrodynamic friction mostly affects the bearings and rings.

 

[Gokhan]

Regarding Toyota 0W-20, its fuel-economy benefits come mostly from its ultra-high-viscosity index, meaning (1) it's thinner during engine warm-up and (2) it's also thinner in high-shear conditions (between rapidly sliding parts) like inside journal bearings and around the piston rings because of its high viscosity-index-improver content. Viscosity-index improvers temporarily shear in high-shear conditions and help fuel economy as they reduce the viscosity under high shear but they do so without compromising wear protection, as they also the increase the viscoelasticity of the oil, which in turn increases the film strength of the oil.

Toyota 0W-20 SN is not the only ultra-high-viscosity-index oil. There are other Japanese OEMs, Eneos Sustina, and so on. Japanese OEMs know that these ultra-high-viscosity-index oils improve the fuel economy and help them reach their fuel-economy goals.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Yes, the reference oil used in API fuel-economy tests is a PAO base stock. However, it doesn't have any friction modifiers in it. In fact, chances are that it has no additive package at all.

There we have it. It wouldn't make any sense for it to be an API/ILSAC lube. It would be a tad circular to say that to pass the test, you must beat an oil that already passed the test.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Yes, the reference oil used in API fuel-economy tests is a PAO base stock. However, it doesn't have any friction modifiers in it. In fact, chances are that it has no additive package at all.

There we have it. It wouldn't make any sense for it to be an API/ILSAC lube. It would be a tad circular to say that to pass the test, you must beat an oil that already passed the test.

Here is the 206-page-long report on the GF-5/SN/RC Sequence VID fuel-economy test.

The reference oil is a 20W-30 with no viscosity-index improvers and no friction modifiers. Lack of viscosity-index improvers and friction modifiers both reduce the fuel economy significantly by increasing both the hydrodynamic friction (through increased high-shear viscosity) and surface friction (through increased coefficient of traction friction), respectively.

 

[Sonataman]

A few of the manufacturers high VI oils are on my list to try.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Regarding Toyota 0W-20, its fuel-economy benefits come mostly from its ultra-high-viscosity index, meaning (1) it's thinner during engine warm-up and (2) it's also thinner in high-shear conditions (between rapidly sliding parts) like inside journal bearings and around the piston rings because of its high viscosity-index-improver content. Viscosity-index improvers temporarily shear in high-shear conditions and help fuel economy as they reduce the viscosity under high shear but they do so without compromising wear protection, as they also the increase the viscoelasticity of the oil, which in turn increases the film strength of the oil.

Toyota 0W-20 SN is not the only ultra-high-viscosity-index oil. There are other Japanese OEMs, Eneos Sustina, and so on. Japanese OEMs know that these ultra-high-viscosity-index oils improve the fuel economy and help them reach their fuel-economy goals.


So you're questioning OPs methods, because he did not use ultra, hyper, super, low viscosity oil, but you can claim all sorts of fuel mileage increase claims, ranging from 5% to 1 mpg and seem to change every time, solely based on that fact that the oil was made to save fuel?
Stop dodging the issue and provide some detailed info for your claims before you question someone else's.

 

[Falken]

All this chat brings me to realize Pennzoil conventional SN is great stuff.

At $10.88 a 4.73 Litre jug at Walmart makes me want to stock up if it gets such great FE numbers.

And, as said, GR3 is still just a conventional oil anyway.

 

[KitaCam]

I wonder what Kitacamry would get if it ran on the highway @
I'd have no problem going with a Pennzoil conventional OC (the dealer here will do it $22) if I don't find another PP/K&N filter OC for $5 AR next year.

 

[Coprolite]

Sonataman, were these springtime results? If so I would love a repeat performance check in the middle of summer/winter when fuel is known not to be a variable.

 

[Vikas]

Originally Posted By: Sonataman
First I'll give a little background. My car is a 2011 Sonata with a manual transmission and I am a stickler for fuel economy. I have an Ultra-gauge and keep meticulous records on OCI mpg, tank mpg and trip mpg. Every trip to and from work I collect data on the temp, baro, map, intake temp, coolant temp, oil temp, wind direction, miles and fuel used. I drive the same route to and from work to keep it as consistent as possible.


Very impressive! I have version 1 of Ultra-Gauge so I understand that it is possible to keep track of OCI, tank and trip MPG. How do you collect data on the other parameters? Wind direction? Does Ultra-Gauge has a wind sensor in it? Ultra-Gauge can report temp, baro, map, intake tempt, coolant temp, oil temp (REALLY? on your Sonata?? From Ultra-Gauge???)

Ultra-Gauge does NOT save any of those parameters so that you can later upload it to computer. Are you writing them down? When are you doing that?

Excuse me if I am coming down harsh on you but impressive claims and methodology claimed here does not pass my credibility test. Just like you had questioned somebody else's assertion of oil's effect on mpg, I am skeptical about your methodology. If I turn out to be wrong, I will publicly apologize to you.

As far as oil and MPG is concerned, I have no horse in this race. I don't even change my own oil and I have no idea what is in my crankcase. So, I am not challenging your mpg vs oil claims. But when it comes to scientific methodology, I am stickler for real and honest data.

Your monitoring of oil temp, wind direction and ability to gather this in real time and upload it for later analysis is unfortunately not possible using Ultra-Gauge. Would you like to tell us how you are managing such an impressive feat?


P.S.
Straight from UltraGauge website
Engine Oil Temperature (ºF) **
** Although supported by UltraGauge, essentially no vehicles support this gauge. As such it has been dropped from UltraGauge EM.

 

[ottotheclown]

I switched from Ultra/PP to Pennzoil Conventional and went from 30mpg to 31/32 mpg in mt 09 Civic. On Civic's Forum I got an acceptance that it could happen and has for others. Amazing why would dino do better??? Hard for some to believe me included.

 

[147_Grain]

Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
I switched from Ultra/PP to Pennzoil Conventional and went from 30mpg to 31/32 mpg in mt 09 Civic. On Civic's Forum I got an acceptance that it could happen and has for others. Amazing why would conventional do better??? Hard for some to believe me included.


Question: Did the outside temperature warm-up 20* after the downgrade to conventional oil? Some other factor is likely involved here BEYOND the quality of oil.

 

[Capa]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: Sonataman
First I'll give a little background. My car is a 2011 Sonata with a manual transmission and I am a stickler for fuel economy. I have an Ultra-gauge and keep meticulous records on OCI mpg, tank mpg and trip mpg. Every trip to and from work I collect data on the temp, baro, map, intake temp, coolant temp, oil temp, wind direction, miles and fuel used. I drive the same route to and from work to keep it as consistent as possible.


Very impressive! I have version 1 of Ultra-Gauge so I understand that it is possible to keep track of OCI, tank and trip MPG. How do you collect data on the other parameters? Wind direction? Does Ultra-Gauge has a wind sensor in it? Ultra-Gauge can report temp, baro, map, intake tempt, coolant temp, oil temp (REALLY? on your Sonata?? From Ultra-Gauge???)

Ultra-Gauge does NOT save any of those parameters so that you can later upload it to computer. Are you writing them down? When are you doing that?

Excuse me if I am coming down harsh on you but impressive claims and methodology claimed here does not pass my credibility test. Just like you had questioned somebody else's assertion of oil's effect on mpg, I am skeptical about your methodology. If I turn out to be wrong, I will publicly apologize to you.

As far as oil and MPG is concerned, I have no horse in this race. I don't even change my own oil and I have no idea what is in my crankcase. So, I am not challenging your mpg vs oil claims. But when it comes to scientific methodology, I am stickler for real and honest data.

Your monitoring of oil temp, wind direction and ability to gather this in real time and upload it for later analysis is unfortunately not possible using Ultra-Gauge. Would you like to tell us how you are managing such an impressive feat?


P.S.
Straight from UltraGauge website
Engine Oil Temperature (ºF) **
** Although supported by UltraGauge, essentially no vehicles support this gauge. As such it has been dropped from UltraGauge EM.


+2. As most will tell you here, there are just too many variables to accurately measure MPG perfectly. I also religiously measure my MPG in one of my vehicles, and have seen very slight variations going from one oil to the next, but I don't consider it "gospel."

 

[Jim Allen]

^ +1

Also it's pretty tuff to pull out any changes due to viscosity from t he background noise and inherent inaccuracies because of these variables. You might see it between a straight 50 grade vs a synthetic 0W16 but.... Overall, you get the best results recording the info long term and averaging the stats. That's the only way you have a hope of getting any useful info. In this case, that appears to be what the OP did, so I have a higher level of trust in the numbers (though I also think the OP is also putting a bit too much trust in his numbers and therefore connecting too many widely spaced dots)

Also, don't take Ultra Gage MPG readouts (or any computerized MPG readouts from the OE or a programmer) as gospel because they are estimating fuel use from engine parameters like MAF. They are useful for comparison purposes and helping you drive more efficiently but a claimed "43 mpg" may be a lot different in reality. In every one I've seen, they read optimistically.

I did a bunch of MPG testing in my truck for some articles and found the electronic gauges read 2-4 mpg more than when I (very carefully) calculated it via miles/gallons. This was two programmers and an Ultra Series 2 (which I gave to my Brother). The new Superchips Vivid programmer I have now has a cool MPG monitoring feature because it allows you to enter a correction factor. You add the MPG you get the old fashioned way via miles/gallons and it corrects itself to read a more accurate figure. If you have a correct speedo (I do but you can calculate your own correction) and keep adding the correction, eventually you get to a place where the readout is dead-nuts on.

 

[threeputtpar]

http://www.pqiamerica.com/Pennzoil.htm

One word - Moly.

I know this info is for a 5w30 and the OP had been using a 10w30, but we all know that Pennzoil conventional still utilizes a large dose of Moly as compared to other oils. That's my theory, and it would be great to see what Pennzoil Conventional 5w20 would do in this real world test. OP, are you up for adding this wrinkle?

Edit: Just noticed that current fill is Pennzoil Conventional 5w20. Now the fun begins!

 

[threeputtpar]

http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/eneossyn.htm

I can see where the other member you cited as having good MPG gains with Eneos oil can be possible. High Moly there, too.

The best I can find is Schaeffer's 9000 syn. It has over 300ppm.