Just for conversation. I have a '95 BMW 740IL, I use synthetics, the best I can get....well, that's what I think. After 18 years....you'd think that what was approved oil (BMW LL-01), in 1995, is now something to laugh at. Seriously, you'd think I could just run conventional Chevron 5W-30. You know what I mean? Any comments?
Oil quality these days
- Thread starter mcallister
- Start date
- Status
I've wondered about that too. Probably you could. I might be tempted to take a chance on name brand synthetic of the right grade. Of course, really good synthetic of the right grade is usually available at a fair price if you aren't too brand loyal so that's the path of least resistance. My old BMW dealer used to fill it up with synth at a fair price so I never fooled around with it. the 8 quart sump and the special giant-sized oil pan I would have had to buy discouraged me.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
LL-01 didn't exist in 1995. The first LL spec that I am aware of was LL-98, coinciding with MY 1998. LL-01 superceded it for MY 2001 cars, but covered the LL-98 spec cars as well. LL-04 superceded LL-01 in Europe but not in North America due to the differences in fuels.
And no, a PAO/POE based synthetic oil from 1995 isn't necessarily inferior to something like Chevron Conventional 5w-30, as for starters the BMW 5w-30 synthetic you are probably referencing has a much higher HTHS and was designed for extended drains, whilst the conventional oil was not.
I suggest digging up the Lubrizol tool and taking a look at how much more stringent even the dated LL-01 spec is over the basic API-SN approval.
For example, here's API SN compared to MB 229.5 and the Ford M2C948-B spec:
And no, a PAO/POE based synthetic oil from 1995 isn't necessarily inferior to something like Chevron Conventional 5w-30, as for starters the BMW 5w-30 synthetic you are probably referencing has a much higher HTHS and was designed for extended drains, whilst the conventional oil was not.
I suggest digging up the Lubrizol tool and taking a look at how much more stringent even the dated LL-01 spec is over the basic API-SN approval.
For example, here's API SN compared to MB 229.5 and the Ford M2C948-B spec:
Originally Posted By: mcallister
Seriously, you'd think I could just run conventional Chevron 5W-30. You know what I mean? Any comments?
In your case you probably could, provided you're not expecting it to be absolutely interchangeable with an A3/B3 A3/B4 type oil. Nonetheless, as Overkill mentions, it's not just some level of "quality" that isn't readily quantifiable. The specification does call for certain things like a minimum HTHS and a minimum TBN, too, if I recall correctly.
The specification was designed to take advantage of advances in oils at the time. Instead of the old style way of the Germans calling for a 10w-30, 5w-30, or lighter for winter and a 15w-40 or heavier in summer, you could have the thickness at operating temperature and the appropriate pumpability under winter conditions to preclude seasonal oil changes and extend OCIs beyond the norm.
Seriously, you'd think I could just run conventional Chevron 5W-30. You know what I mean? Any comments?
In your case you probably could, provided you're not expecting it to be absolutely interchangeable with an A3/B3 A3/B4 type oil. Nonetheless, as Overkill mentions, it's not just some level of "quality" that isn't readily quantifiable. The specification does call for certain things like a minimum HTHS and a minimum TBN, too, if I recall correctly.
The specification was designed to take advantage of advances in oils at the time. Instead of the old style way of the Germans calling for a 10w-30, 5w-30, or lighter for winter and a 15w-40 or heavier in summer, you could have the thickness at operating temperature and the appropriate pumpability under winter conditions to preclude seasonal oil changes and extend OCIs beyond the norm.
Maxlife 10W-40 works well in my old BMW.
It probably would in yours as well.
It does have high enough HTHSV for the engine, although it is probably not up to drains as long as the MM would allow.
OTOH, most of the oils that met the temp/visc/API specs in your OM probably weren't either.
It probably would in yours as well.
It does have high enough HTHSV for the engine, although it is probably not up to drains as long as the MM would allow.
OTOH, most of the oils that met the temp/visc/API specs in your OM probably weren't either.
I think others have answered this question very well. The only thing I would add would be to never use an ILSAC rated oil in a German application. The Germans have their own set of fuel economy specifications (e.g. MB Sheet 229.5) if that is what you're looking for.
I think the Lubrizol tool is the most eye-opening oil performance comparison I have ever seen
. If I am not misinterpreting what it is telling us SN compared to Euro oils is pitiful. ILSAC GF-5 is a little more potent but in a VERY NARROW performance region.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: pscholte
I think the Lubrizol tool is the most eye-opening oil performance comparison I have ever seen
. If I am not misinterpreting what it is telling us SN compared to Euro oils is pitiful. ILSAC GF-5 is a little more potent but in a VERY NARROW performance region.
You aren't misinterpreting. While actual #'s aren't given, it does display relative performance criteria for a given spec, so you can see that there are many areas that the Euro marques choose to focus on that aren't covered on your basic API approval.
I think the Lubrizol tool is the most eye-opening oil performance comparison I have ever seen
You aren't misinterpreting. While actual #'s aren't given, it does display relative performance criteria for a given spec, so you can see that there are many areas that the Euro marques choose to focus on that aren't covered on your basic API approval.
Originally Posted By: pscholte
If I am not misinterpreting what it is telling us SN compared to Euro oils is pitiful. ILSAC GF-5 is a little more potent but in a VERY NARROW performance region.
OVERKILL covers it nicely, but there are certain things we need to keep in perspective. I can't think of many applications that call for SN on its own (except maybe some outdoor power equipment). Most are calling for SN/GF-5, or are at least calling for grades that will be SN/GF-5 when you actually buy them.
Then, the average North American oil change interval isn't anywhere near that of the European makes, so TBN will be lower. Note that the varieties of M1 with OCI guarantees do meet ACEA specifications, if only A1/B1 A5/B5, which have some enhanced minimum TBN.
If you compare CJ-4 to the European specifications, you'll see they are much, much closer, since the ACEA E and European OEM diesel specs take CJ-4 as a starting point and go from there, which certainly isn't the case with the gasoline specifications.
If I am not misinterpreting what it is telling us SN compared to Euro oils is pitiful. ILSAC GF-5 is a little more potent but in a VERY NARROW performance region.
OVERKILL covers it nicely, but there are certain things we need to keep in perspective. I can't think of many applications that call for SN on its own (except maybe some outdoor power equipment). Most are calling for SN/GF-5, or are at least calling for grades that will be SN/GF-5 when you actually buy them.
Then, the average North American oil change interval isn't anywhere near that of the European makes, so TBN will be lower. Note that the varieties of M1 with OCI guarantees do meet ACEA specifications, if only A1/B1 A5/B5, which have some enhanced minimum TBN.
If you compare CJ-4 to the European specifications, you'll see they are much, much closer, since the ACEA E and European OEM diesel specs take CJ-4 as a starting point and go from there, which certainly isn't the case with the gasoline specifications.
it amazes ne how lame the sn oils are in this country!!!i use lubrizols graph on alot of oils very interesting!!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
it amazes ne how lame the sn oils are in this country!!!i use lubrizols graph on alot of oils very interesting!!
bct22,
I am persuaded that oils that meet Porsche C40, MB229.5 and .51, and certain other Euro manufacturers specs blow away SN and overall outdo ILSAC GF-5. It is pitiful the standards we live with in the US.
it amazes ne how lame the sn oils are in this country!!!i use lubrizols graph on alot of oils very interesting!!
bct22,
I am persuaded that oils that meet Porsche C40, MB229.5 and .51, and certain other Euro manufacturers specs blow away SN and overall outdo ILSAC GF-5. It is pitiful the standards we live with in the US.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: pscholte
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
it amazes ne how lame the sn oils are in this country!!!i use lubrizols graph on alot of oils very interesting!!
bct22,
I am persuaded that oils that meet Porsche C40, MB229.5 and .51, and certain other Euro manufacturers specs blow away SN and overall outdo ILSAC GF-5. It is pitiful the standards we live with in the US.
Don't forget that we do not pay Euro prices for oil. It's all about perspective IMO.
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
it amazes ne how lame the sn oils are in this country!!!i use lubrizols graph on alot of oils very interesting!!
bct22,
I am persuaded that oils that meet Porsche C40, MB229.5 and .51, and certain other Euro manufacturers specs blow away SN and overall outdo ILSAC GF-5. It is pitiful the standards we live with in the US.
Don't forget that we do not pay Euro prices for oil. It's all about perspective IMO.
Originally Posted By: pscholte
I am persuaded that oils that meet Porsche C40, MB229.5 and .51, and certain other Euro manufacturers specs blow away SN and overall outdo ILSAC GF-5. It is pitiful the standards we live with in the US.
Really, though, the average North American or Japanese vehicle and its usage pattern wouldn't benefit from an "overbuilt" oil. When I ran the taxi fleet, that involved oils long before SN/GF-5 and predating the ACEA.
These vehicles used oils meeting "pitiful standards," particularly compared to today's pitiful standards. Yet, they managed to go double the manufacturer's recommended OCI and carried the vehicles into hundreds of thousands of miles each. I fail too see how a modern oil with all the certifications in the world could have done better.
Now, if the application or usage pattern is demanding, you're extending OCIs, you're looking for certain properties not normally available in an API/ILSAC lube (i.e. low SAPS), then, by all means, an ACEA type lube is the way to go. Heck, aside from marketing, a little extra revenue, and a fancy logo, I'm not sure what GM hoped to accomplish by dexos1 that they couldn't have accomplished with ACEA A1/B1 A5/B5 (or the old Vette spec).
A small block Chevy doesn't need M1 0w-40 to go hundreds of thousands of miles. Further, it will probably still eat its cam, no matter which lube you choose. On the other hand, it would be extremely foolhardy to use a generic SN/GF-5 5w-30 in a brand new Mercedes for a 20,000 km+ OCI.
I am persuaded that oils that meet Porsche C40, MB229.5 and .51, and certain other Euro manufacturers specs blow away SN and overall outdo ILSAC GF-5. It is pitiful the standards we live with in the US.
Really, though, the average North American or Japanese vehicle and its usage pattern wouldn't benefit from an "overbuilt" oil. When I ran the taxi fleet, that involved oils long before SN/GF-5 and predating the ACEA.
These vehicles used oils meeting "pitiful standards," particularly compared to today's pitiful standards. Yet, they managed to go double the manufacturer's recommended OCI and carried the vehicles into hundreds of thousands of miles each. I fail too see how a modern oil with all the certifications in the world could have done better.
Now, if the application or usage pattern is demanding, you're extending OCIs, you're looking for certain properties not normally available in an API/ILSAC lube (i.e. low SAPS), then, by all means, an ACEA type lube is the way to go. Heck, aside from marketing, a little extra revenue, and a fancy logo, I'm not sure what GM hoped to accomplish by dexos1 that they couldn't have accomplished with ACEA A1/B1 A5/B5 (or the old Vette spec).
A small block Chevy doesn't need M1 0w-40 to go hundreds of thousands of miles. Further, it will probably still eat its cam, no matter which lube you choose. On the other hand, it would be extremely foolhardy to use a generic SN/GF-5 5w-30 in a brand new Mercedes for a 20,000 km+ OCI.
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted By: pscholte
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
it amazes ne how lame the sn oils are in this country!!!i use lubrizols graph on alot of oils very interesting!!
bct22,
I am persuaded that oils that meet Porsche C40, MB229.5 and .51, and certain other Euro manufacturers specs blow away SN and overall outdo ILSAC GF-5. It is pitiful the standards we live with in the US.
Don't forget that we do not pay Euro prices for oil. It's all about perspective IMO.
B...T...D...,
Don't you think a lot of the price difference between US and Euro oils is the VAT or other taxes?
Originally Posted By: pscholte
Originally Posted By: boxcartommie22
it amazes ne how lame the sn oils are in this country!!!i use lubrizols graph on alot of oils very interesting!!
bct22,
I am persuaded that oils that meet Porsche C40, MB229.5 and .51, and certain other Euro manufacturers specs blow away SN and overall outdo ILSAC GF-5. It is pitiful the standards we live with in the US.
Don't forget that we do not pay Euro prices for oil. It's all about perspective IMO.
B...T...D...,
Don't you think a lot of the price difference between US and Euro oils is the VAT or other taxes?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: pscholte
I am persuaded that oils that meet Porsche C40, MB229.5 and .51, and certain other Euro manufacturers specs blow away SN and overall outdo ILSAC GF-5. It is pitiful the standards we live with in the US.
Really, though, the average North American or Japanese vehicle and its usage pattern wouldn't benefit from an "overbuilt" oil. When I ran the taxi fleet, that involved oils long before SN/GF-5 and predating the ACEA.
These vehicles used oils meeting "pitiful standards," particularly compared to today's pitiful standards. Yet, they managed to go double the manufacturer's recommended OCI and carried the vehicles into hundreds of thousands of miles each. I fail too see how a modern oil with all the certifications in the world could have done better.
Now, if the application or usage pattern is demanding, you're extending OCIs, you're looking for certain properties not normally available in an API/ILSAC lube (i.e. low SAPS), then, by all means, an ACEA type lube is the way to go. Heck, aside from marketing, a little extra revenue, and a fancy logo, I'm not sure what GM hoped to accomplish by dexos1 that they couldn't have accomplished with ACEA A1/B1 A5/B5 (or the old Vette spec).
A small block Chevy doesn't need M1 0w-40 to go hundreds of thousands of miles. Further, it will probably still eat its cam, no matter which lube you choose. On the other hand, it would be extremely foolhardy to use a generic SN/GF-5 5w-30 in a brand new Mercedes for a 20,000 km+ OCI.
Garak,
Does not the REAL value of "overengineered" oils come into play in moments of extreme stress when that overengineering is a bit of insurance? You are no doubt right that under most circumstances an SN/ILSAC GF-5 oil will do quite well in an American engine.
Originally Posted By: pscholte
I am persuaded that oils that meet Porsche C40, MB229.5 and .51, and certain other Euro manufacturers specs blow away SN and overall outdo ILSAC GF-5. It is pitiful the standards we live with in the US.
Really, though, the average North American or Japanese vehicle and its usage pattern wouldn't benefit from an "overbuilt" oil. When I ran the taxi fleet, that involved oils long before SN/GF-5 and predating the ACEA.
These vehicles used oils meeting "pitiful standards," particularly compared to today's pitiful standards. Yet, they managed to go double the manufacturer's recommended OCI and carried the vehicles into hundreds of thousands of miles each. I fail too see how a modern oil with all the certifications in the world could have done better.
Now, if the application or usage pattern is demanding, you're extending OCIs, you're looking for certain properties not normally available in an API/ILSAC lube (i.e. low SAPS), then, by all means, an ACEA type lube is the way to go. Heck, aside from marketing, a little extra revenue, and a fancy logo, I'm not sure what GM hoped to accomplish by dexos1 that they couldn't have accomplished with ACEA A1/B1 A5/B5 (or the old Vette spec).
A small block Chevy doesn't need M1 0w-40 to go hundreds of thousands of miles. Further, it will probably still eat its cam, no matter which lube you choose. On the other hand, it would be extremely foolhardy to use a generic SN/GF-5 5w-30 in a brand new Mercedes for a 20,000 km+ OCI.
Garak,
Does not the REAL value of "overengineered" oils come into play in moments of extreme stress when that overengineering is a bit of insurance? You are no doubt right that under most circumstances an SN/ILSAC GF-5 oil will do quite well in an American engine.
That's true, I'm sure, but that would come into play extremely rarely. Even the API/ILSAC oils tend to have an ample safety margin built into them, application dependent, of course.
I do cringe sometimes when I read of someone using M1 0w-40 or GC in an old, factory small block Chev. Of course, the lubricants are perfectly suitable and vastly exceed the original recommendations (both by the letter of the rules, as it were, and the spirit of the specifications), but the lubricants will never be used to anything approaching their full potential.
Incidentally, that's why the Delvac 1 didn't wind up in the F-150. It's not that Delvac 1 doesn't meet the standards and viscosity requirements of the Ford 4.9 L. It just strikes me as supreme overkill for a carbed engine that won't see sufficiently extended OCIs to warrant that lubricant. Heck, the QS Defy I have waiting to go in is probably overkill.
But, if someone is subjecting their engines to extreme stress, be it really difficult weather, tracking, really long OCIs, and so forth, then by all means, use something a bit stouter. As I alluded to, some of our normal, everyday synthetics do meet some enhanced specifications beyond SN/GF-5, such as dexos1 and ACEA A1/B1 A5/B5. The ACEA specifications at least call for a higher minimum TBN for extended OCIs.
And the other thing we have to watch is that new users might not be as familiar with the specifications as you or I or most of the other posters here are. They could conceivably have a new Japanese or North American vehicle still under warranty calling for a 0w-20 or 5w-20 SN/GF-5 and see you and I raving about how your A3/B4 oil has an HTHS of => 3.5 and a TBN of => 10 and my E7/E9 oil is similar and think that's what they really need for their application, contrary to their manual recommendations.
In reality, you and I both have a stash to go through, are out of warranty or aren't worried about warranty and understand the implications, and are just having some fun, too.
Car manufacturers and oil companies should worry more about overbuilding transmissions and transmission fluids, rather than the oils, anyhow.
I do cringe sometimes when I read of someone using M1 0w-40 or GC in an old, factory small block Chev. Of course, the lubricants are perfectly suitable and vastly exceed the original recommendations (both by the letter of the rules, as it were, and the spirit of the specifications), but the lubricants will never be used to anything approaching their full potential.
Incidentally, that's why the Delvac 1 didn't wind up in the F-150. It's not that Delvac 1 doesn't meet the standards and viscosity requirements of the Ford 4.9 L. It just strikes me as supreme overkill for a carbed engine that won't see sufficiently extended OCIs to warrant that lubricant. Heck, the QS Defy I have waiting to go in is probably overkill.
But, if someone is subjecting their engines to extreme stress, be it really difficult weather, tracking, really long OCIs, and so forth, then by all means, use something a bit stouter. As I alluded to, some of our normal, everyday synthetics do meet some enhanced specifications beyond SN/GF-5, such as dexos1 and ACEA A1/B1 A5/B5. The ACEA specifications at least call for a higher minimum TBN for extended OCIs.
And the other thing we have to watch is that new users might not be as familiar with the specifications as you or I or most of the other posters here are. They could conceivably have a new Japanese or North American vehicle still under warranty calling for a 0w-20 or 5w-20 SN/GF-5 and see you and I raving about how your A3/B4 oil has an HTHS of => 3.5 and a TBN of => 10 and my E7/E9 oil is similar and think that's what they really need for their application, contrary to their manual recommendations.
In reality, you and I both have a stash to go through, are out of warranty or aren't worried about warranty and understand the implications, and are just having some fun, too.
Car manufacturers and oil companies should worry more about overbuilding transmissions and transmission fluids, rather than the oils, anyhow.
This is getting quite interesting, and I suppose we're seeing an element of opinion here now as well.
Personally, I've never been too fond of API and ILSAC approvals. I've never personally experienced any difference in fuel economy when using an ILSAC rated oil versus an ACEA A3/B4 oil either to be honest, and comparing the two together on Lubrizol's Performance Comparison Tool, the idea of running an ILSAC or plain API rated oil in my engines makes me cringe.
I've got two American cars in my fleet with, by today's standards, "big engines". The Ford 4.6L had a steady diet of PAO based Liqui Moly Synthoil High Tech 5W-40 since I got it. OCI's have been on average 7,500 miles. This meets ACEA A3/B4-04 approval whilst meeting the performance criteria for MB Sheet 229.3, Porsche A40 and BMW LongLife-98. The engine ran and revved smoother than anything I've ever tried in a Ford 4.6L before, as well as being much quieter. Considering the temperature extremes (120 F at 10 AM yesterday for instance), and my heavy right foot, I firmly believe this is a better option than an ILSAC rated lubricant.
Given this is my fun car, and there's a massive engine rebuild/upgrade coming up soon, I decided I would step up to a 10W-60. I was tempted to go with Liqui Moly Synthoil Race Tech GT-1 10W-60, but the Mobil 1 10W-60 is supposedly blended for "older, higher mileage engines" (this one's got 192,500 miles on the clock at the moment, albeit still ticking strong). I have zero problems with oil burning, although my passenger side valve cover is weeping and I said "what the heck, I'll give it a go". It hasn't done much for my valve cover gasket, although the engine really runs smoothly and loves the stuff. This is, in comparison to Liqui Moly's PAO, a Group III. Once the rebuild (supercharged) is out the way, I will switch to and stick with PAO.
My Envoy, on the other hand, calls for an ACEA A3 rated oil right in the manual. The viscosity range gives you a choice of anything between 0W-30 to 20W-50, with 5W-40 being what's recommended. Contrary to an American model, which probably spec'd an API SL/ILSAC GF-3 rated oil as bare minimum with a viscosity of 5W-30.
The Envoy gets its oil changes done by the OLM, and my preferred spec is MB 229.5 for it, given all the bases it covers on Lubrizol's chart. Oil drain intervals are on average about 12,000 miles. Currently, according to my ScanGauge-II, the OLM is at 4.7% and I've already clocked 11,065 miles on the oil. Again, given ambient temperatures, and the way it is driven, even the thought of a barebones API and/or ILSAC rated lubricant makes me cringe.
Personally, I've never been too fond of API and ILSAC approvals. I've never personally experienced any difference in fuel economy when using an ILSAC rated oil versus an ACEA A3/B4 oil either to be honest, and comparing the two together on Lubrizol's Performance Comparison Tool, the idea of running an ILSAC or plain API rated oil in my engines makes me cringe.
I've got two American cars in my fleet with, by today's standards, "big engines". The Ford 4.6L had a steady diet of PAO based Liqui Moly Synthoil High Tech 5W-40 since I got it. OCI's have been on average 7,500 miles. This meets ACEA A3/B4-04 approval whilst meeting the performance criteria for MB Sheet 229.3, Porsche A40 and BMW LongLife-98. The engine ran and revved smoother than anything I've ever tried in a Ford 4.6L before, as well as being much quieter. Considering the temperature extremes (120 F at 10 AM yesterday for instance), and my heavy right foot, I firmly believe this is a better option than an ILSAC rated lubricant.
Given this is my fun car, and there's a massive engine rebuild/upgrade coming up soon, I decided I would step up to a 10W-60. I was tempted to go with Liqui Moly Synthoil Race Tech GT-1 10W-60, but the Mobil 1 10W-60 is supposedly blended for "older, higher mileage engines" (this one's got 192,500 miles on the clock at the moment, albeit still ticking strong). I have zero problems with oil burning, although my passenger side valve cover is weeping and I said "what the heck, I'll give it a go". It hasn't done much for my valve cover gasket, although the engine really runs smoothly and loves the stuff. This is, in comparison to Liqui Moly's PAO, a Group III. Once the rebuild (supercharged) is out the way, I will switch to and stick with PAO.
My Envoy, on the other hand, calls for an ACEA A3 rated oil right in the manual. The viscosity range gives you a choice of anything between 0W-30 to 20W-50, with 5W-40 being what's recommended. Contrary to an American model, which probably spec'd an API SL/ILSAC GF-3 rated oil as bare minimum with a viscosity of 5W-30.
The Envoy gets its oil changes done by the OLM, and my preferred spec is MB 229.5 for it, given all the bases it covers on Lubrizol's chart. Oil drain intervals are on average about 12,000 miles. Currently, according to my ScanGauge-II, the OLM is at 4.7% and I've already clocked 11,065 miles on the oil. Again, given ambient temperatures, and the way it is driven, even the thought of a barebones API and/or ILSAC rated lubricant makes me cringe.
Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
I've never personally experienced any difference in fuel economy when using an ILSAC rated oil versus an ACEA A3/B4 oil either to be honest, and comparing the two together on Lubrizol's Performance Comparison Tool, the idea of running an ILSAC or plain API rated oil in my engines makes me cringe.
You won't find me disagreeing on the fuel economy issue at all. There obviously are sufficient benefits for those supplying cars to North America, but it's not terribly significant for the motorist. Any fuel economy gains could easily be wiped out by hitting the gas hard a few times.
In the end, if one is going for something above and beyond the API/ILSAC oil, it all depends upon whether or not its worth it. You're doing some things with the 4.6 L and if you put some significant added performance in there, then you certainly have a valid reason to watch what you use. Nonetheless, they do tend to last very many miles using the specified 5w-20, too.
If you look at things from a fleet perspective, where the dollars and downtime count, if the oil is double the price, it better allow for at least double the OCI. And if it can't do double the OCI, can it double the lifespan of the engine?
Your Envoy case is interesting. I wonder if the OLM is a little different in your market, considering the manual calls for ACEA A3 and has gotten you to over 11,000 miles without setting off the light. I don't have a lot of experience with that platform, but to me, it would seem that would be a rather lengthy OCI for a conventional SL/GF-3 type lubricant.
I've never personally experienced any difference in fuel economy when using an ILSAC rated oil versus an ACEA A3/B4 oil either to be honest, and comparing the two together on Lubrizol's Performance Comparison Tool, the idea of running an ILSAC or plain API rated oil in my engines makes me cringe.
You won't find me disagreeing on the fuel economy issue at all. There obviously are sufficient benefits for those supplying cars to North America, but it's not terribly significant for the motorist. Any fuel economy gains could easily be wiped out by hitting the gas hard a few times.
In the end, if one is going for something above and beyond the API/ILSAC oil, it all depends upon whether or not its worth it. You're doing some things with the 4.6 L and if you put some significant added performance in there, then you certainly have a valid reason to watch what you use. Nonetheless, they do tend to last very many miles using the specified 5w-20, too.
If you look at things from a fleet perspective, where the dollars and downtime count, if the oil is double the price, it better allow for at least double the OCI. And if it can't do double the OCI, can it double the lifespan of the engine?
Your Envoy case is interesting. I wonder if the OLM is a little different in your market, considering the manual calls for ACEA A3 and has gotten you to over 11,000 miles without setting off the light. I don't have a lot of experience with that platform, but to me, it would seem that would be a rather lengthy OCI for a conventional SL/GF-3 type lubricant.
Falcon.
A 60 grade in a mod motor. That's interesting. They are a great engine and will tolerate a variety of lubricants however I think I would have installed a thermostatically controlled oil cooler in favour of going with a thicker oil.
I know when I went from a 20 grade to a 40 grade my 4.6's certainly noticed and became more sluggish. I think you'd gain more by going with a 40 grade and oil cooler rather than such a thick oil. Those engines have an internal by-pass so once too much pressure is achieved it by-passes inside the engine.
But please keep updating on your observations. I'd like to know.
A 60 grade in a mod motor. That's interesting. They are a great engine and will tolerate a variety of lubricants however I think I would have installed a thermostatically controlled oil cooler in favour of going with a thicker oil.
I know when I went from a 20 grade to a 40 grade my 4.6's certainly noticed and became more sluggish. I think you'd gain more by going with a 40 grade and oil cooler rather than such a thick oil. Those engines have an internal by-pass so once too much pressure is achieved it by-passes inside the engine.
But please keep updating on your observations. I'd like to know.
Originally Posted By: Garak
You won't find me disagreeing on the fuel economy issue at all. There obviously are sufficient benefits for those supplying cars to North America, but it's not terribly significant for the motorist. Any fuel economy gains could easily be wiped out by hitting the gas hard a few times.
In the end, if one is going for something above and beyond the API/ILSAC oil, it all depends upon whether or not its worth it. You're doing some things with the 4.6 L and if you put some significant added performance in there, then you certainly have a valid reason to watch what you use. Nonetheless, they do tend to last very many miles using the specified 5w-20, too.
If you look at things from a fleet perspective, where the dollars and downtime count, if the oil is double the price, it better allow for at least double the OCI. And if it can't do double the OCI, can it double the lifespan of the engine?
Your Envoy case is interesting. I wonder if the OLM is a little different in your market, considering the manual calls for ACEA A3 and has gotten you to over 11,000 miles without setting off the light. I don't have a lot of experience with that platform, but to me, it would seem that would be a rather lengthy OCI for a conventional SL/GF-3 type lubricant.
What's interesting about Ford and 5W-20 is that it was never specified in the Middle East. Ford explicitly recommends 10W-30 for all their vehicles - new vehicles always come with supplemental documents stating only 10W-30 should be used. There's also an additionally printed manual outlining the use of 10W-30 engine oil only . Prior to 1996, the default standard was 10W-40 or 20W-40. Oddly enough, the Mod motors that spec'd 10W-30 here were spec'd for 5W-40 in Australia.
GM has always had a viscosity/temperature chart in their owner manuals, with quite a few of their vehicles calling for ACEA A3 spec, not just the GMT360 platform. I remember Australian (Holden) sourced vehicles had mentioning of a 25W-70 which very much surprised me. That's not a grade you can get here though, unfortunately. There is no mention of ILSAC in the manuals.
Other manufacturers, like Toyota and Nissan for instance, have their own brand "Genuine Motor Oil" of a 20W-50 viscosity. Mitsubishi Genuine Motor Oil is of a slightly lesser viscosity at 15W-40, but it is an HDEO, which is what it recommends for all their vehicles. Lexus has their own brand 5W-40. Hyundai explicitly uses Shell lubricants, but of a 20W-50 viscosity. Have to say, reading someone's thread about Hyundai Canada canceling their warranty for using a 0W-30 did make me smile.
With the exception of their M Power vehicles, BMW explicitly uses Liqui Moly Leichtlauf Special LongLife 5W-30 in their vehicles, meeting BMW LongLife-01 spec, but with a high TBN of almost 11. Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen call for 5W-40. Mercedes explicitly uses FUCHS Titan SuperSyn LongLife 5W-40, whilst I believe Volkswagen uses Castrol 5W-40 Professional imported from Germany.
Chrysler is the only manufacturer requiring 5W-20 for their V8 engines, whilst their V6 and L4 engines still call for 10W-30.
As far as the 4.6L is concerned, the thinnest I've ever run in one was a 10W-30 meeting ILSAC spec, but I have tried Mopar branded 5W-20 as well. I've found the engine to be noisier compared to ACEA rated lubricants I've used, and had oil consumption issues. The 5W-20 was only in there for about 1,000 km before I dumped it for Liqui Moly Synthoil 0W-30. By the time it hit 1,000 km, it was already a liter low, and I've never had oil consumption issues with the engine - it was on a 2003 Mercury Grand Marquis with 52,000 km at the time.
Having said that, I am pretty confident in saying the OLM in the Envoy must have been calibrated for ACEA A3 oils. There's no other way it would allow for such extended drain intervals on an API rated oil.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Falcon.
A 60 grade in a mod motor. That's interesting. They are a great engine and will tolerate a variety of lubricants however I think I would have installed a thermostatically controlled oil cooler in favour of going with a thicker oil.
I know when I went from a 20 grade to a 40 grade my 4.6's certainly noticed and became more sluggish. I think you'd gain more by going with a 40 grade and oil cooler rather than such a thick oil. Those engines have an internal by-pass so once too much pressure is achieved it by-passes inside the engine.
But please keep updating on your observations. I'd like to know.
My Grand Marquis actually came with the High Ambient Temperature/High Speed Package, found on Police Interceptors, from the factory. This includes an oil cooler controlled by coolant temperature. Running 10W-60 was mainly for experimental purposes, but the engine runs no sluggish than it did on Motorcraft 10W-30, which is surprising. In its current state with bolt-ons, a 5W-40 would suffice I would imagine. Although it does see its share of idling time in extreme temperatures (it was 58 C in the shade at 1:30 pm yesterday) during rush hour followed by higher speed (160+ km/h) driving.
With a supercharger, forged internals and Stage 3 heads though, I believe 10W-60 would be a better choice - especially given how it will be driven.
You won't find me disagreeing on the fuel economy issue at all. There obviously are sufficient benefits for those supplying cars to North America, but it's not terribly significant for the motorist. Any fuel economy gains could easily be wiped out by hitting the gas hard a few times.
In the end, if one is going for something above and beyond the API/ILSAC oil, it all depends upon whether or not its worth it. You're doing some things with the 4.6 L and if you put some significant added performance in there, then you certainly have a valid reason to watch what you use. Nonetheless, they do tend to last very many miles using the specified 5w-20, too.
If you look at things from a fleet perspective, where the dollars and downtime count, if the oil is double the price, it better allow for at least double the OCI. And if it can't do double the OCI, can it double the lifespan of the engine?
Your Envoy case is interesting. I wonder if the OLM is a little different in your market, considering the manual calls for ACEA A3 and has gotten you to over 11,000 miles without setting off the light. I don't have a lot of experience with that platform, but to me, it would seem that would be a rather lengthy OCI for a conventional SL/GF-3 type lubricant.
What's interesting about Ford and 5W-20 is that it was never specified in the Middle East. Ford explicitly recommends 10W-30 for all their vehicles - new vehicles always come with supplemental documents stating only 10W-30 should be used. There's also an additionally printed manual outlining the use of 10W-30 engine oil only . Prior to 1996, the default standard was 10W-40 or 20W-40. Oddly enough, the Mod motors that spec'd 10W-30 here were spec'd for 5W-40 in Australia.
GM has always had a viscosity/temperature chart in their owner manuals, with quite a few of their vehicles calling for ACEA A3 spec, not just the GMT360 platform. I remember Australian (Holden) sourced vehicles had mentioning of a 25W-70 which very much surprised me. That's not a grade you can get here though, unfortunately. There is no mention of ILSAC in the manuals.
Other manufacturers, like Toyota and Nissan for instance, have their own brand "Genuine Motor Oil" of a 20W-50 viscosity. Mitsubishi Genuine Motor Oil is of a slightly lesser viscosity at 15W-40, but it is an HDEO, which is what it recommends for all their vehicles. Lexus has their own brand 5W-40. Hyundai explicitly uses Shell lubricants, but of a 20W-50 viscosity. Have to say, reading someone's thread about Hyundai Canada canceling their warranty for using a 0W-30 did make me smile.
With the exception of their M Power vehicles, BMW explicitly uses Liqui Moly Leichtlauf Special LongLife 5W-30 in their vehicles, meeting BMW LongLife-01 spec, but with a high TBN of almost 11. Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen call for 5W-40. Mercedes explicitly uses FUCHS Titan SuperSyn LongLife 5W-40, whilst I believe Volkswagen uses Castrol 5W-40 Professional imported from Germany.
Chrysler is the only manufacturer requiring 5W-20 for their V8 engines, whilst their V6 and L4 engines still call for 10W-30.
As far as the 4.6L is concerned, the thinnest I've ever run in one was a 10W-30 meeting ILSAC spec, but I have tried Mopar branded 5W-20 as well. I've found the engine to be noisier compared to ACEA rated lubricants I've used, and had oil consumption issues. The 5W-20 was only in there for about 1,000 km before I dumped it for Liqui Moly Synthoil 0W-30. By the time it hit 1,000 km, it was already a liter low, and I've never had oil consumption issues with the engine - it was on a 2003 Mercury Grand Marquis with 52,000 km at the time.
Having said that, I am pretty confident in saying the OLM in the Envoy must have been calibrated for ACEA A3 oils. There's no other way it would allow for such extended drain intervals on an API rated oil.
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Falcon.
A 60 grade in a mod motor. That's interesting. They are a great engine and will tolerate a variety of lubricants however I think I would have installed a thermostatically controlled oil cooler in favour of going with a thicker oil.
I know when I went from a 20 grade to a 40 grade my 4.6's certainly noticed and became more sluggish. I think you'd gain more by going with a 40 grade and oil cooler rather than such a thick oil. Those engines have an internal by-pass so once too much pressure is achieved it by-passes inside the engine.
But please keep updating on your observations. I'd like to know.
My Grand Marquis actually came with the High Ambient Temperature/High Speed Package, found on Police Interceptors, from the factory. This includes an oil cooler controlled by coolant temperature. Running 10W-60 was mainly for experimental purposes, but the engine runs no sluggish than it did on Motorcraft 10W-30, which is surprising. In its current state with bolt-ons, a 5W-40 would suffice I would imagine. Although it does see its share of idling time in extreme temperatures (it was 58 C in the shade at 1:30 pm yesterday) during rush hour followed by higher speed (160+ km/h) driving.
With a supercharger, forged internals and Stage 3 heads though, I believe 10W-60 would be a better choice - especially given how it will be driven.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
