READ PLEASE! 5w20 vs 5w30 engine life? opinions ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
I do not know how good the XW20 oils of today are, but, back in the 1950's everyone used straight 20 weights.
There's a huge difference between 20W-20 oils like back in the fifties, and modern 5W-20 oils
 
Originally Posted By: blackman777
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
I do not know how good the XW20 oils of today are, but, back in the 1950's everyone used straight 20 weights.
There's a huge difference between 20W-20 oils like back in the fifties, and modern 5W-20 oils


If you made a modern straight 20 it would last longer than a dino blend 5/20 in theory, although not by much. It would be OK above freezing until warmish.
The old 20 would have had more Zinc and offered better cold start protection.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rvt
I use the Toyota 0W20 in my '12 Camry and now have Mobil 1 5W20 installed in my Ford V10 motorhome. I have no concerns about shortened engine longevity.

Twenty weight oils have long been recommended for summer use. GM recommended 20wt in many engines in the '50s and '60s. Ford has recommended 5W20 for a decade or more. There is less difference between a 20 and 30 weight oil than the numbers 20 and 30 would imply (look up HTHS specs for these oils). Maybe the oils should be referred to as 27 and 31 for very typical HTHS specs for these products.

I used to be a fan of heavier than recommended oils here in so. CA. I used 15W50 Mobil 1 in my 1992 Chev truck for 40 mile commutes. But I've seen time and time again engines which ran the 20 wt. factory spec oil for many years and miles, and they run great with clean internals, minimal blowby, and low consumption.

The concept of a 30% life reduction is laughable as a blanket statement. Many automotive trips are short, many at greatly reduced loading, and many in mild to cold weather. It is my view the engineers are recording very low or no additional wear from the 20 weight oil at any range of the conditions the cars see during their proving tests, including ultra hot testing in AZ and Death Valley. It is also my view the engines have better rigidity and control oil temps better than they did in the past.

I'd consider going up a grade only if the vehicle was operated extensively at or beyond the factory tested limits. I'm not even close.


The factory tests are on new vehicles and those still under extended power train warranty if one is offered. Very few manufacturers apart from a few top of the range folks with a reputation for long life vehicles take any interest in their older engines and none of them publish full results anyway. Just because some manufacturer says they did tests in a desert and the results were good, it means nothing, as the bean counters are writing the public reports.
One classic example is the Ford focus 2 ltr diesel that is used in the newer Volvo V50, Ford say 5/20 in the US, Volvo say 0 or 5/30 in the US as a token gesture to the CAFE regs and then list 0 or 5/30, 0 or 5/40 and 15/40, with a specific warning to use a 15/40 full synthetic in hot desert severe service situations like towing.
The required viscosity to maintain the minimum oil film thickness depend on air temperature, RPM and load. Towing heavy loads at high speed in a hot climate produces the highest sustained oil temps, so requires the best possible oil with a higher than normal viscosity, not the 5/20 dino blend and the older the engine the more important it is to use the correct oil for the job.
The Germans figured out the effects of boy racers with older cars from UOA results very quickly and moved to using 0 or 5/40's for older engines ages OK, but some folks don't learn from history.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Skyship
The quality of the bearings in use in a modern 2012 spec car is often lower than those in a 2008 car due to back speccing that is rampant at present to reduce production costs. Some R&D effort was put into improving ring design to reduce oil consumption, but not bearings which is where the savings are being made. I suspect the article is even more valid in terms of main bearing wear than when it was written.

Advancements in bearing construction has come a long way in the last 10 years.

http://www.aa1car.com/library/ar797.htm

This thick/thin oil nonsense is just that nonsense.
Not every engine can run on 20w oil without sustaining damage but most engines can run thicker oil without damage thats true enough but..

With a very rigid bottom end, wider main bearing saddles and wider rod bearings together with a forged crank polished to work properly with xw 20w oils and the correct bearing materials there is zero issues running it.

Just putting a high flow oil pump with a larger sump is not the answer as it wont eliminate crank or block flexing which because of the tighter clearances could allow the crank to break the oil film and contact the bearings.

When i read this rubbish about going thinner because its better i really get annoyed as it shows a lack of understanding of what the engine needs to actually use a thin oil and be reliable.
Thinner is seldom better in engines that spec xw30 or xw40.
Many older diesels can in fact use thinner oils than original spec because their bottom ends are massive built.

An engine with a cast crank thin saddles using bimetal/trimetal bearings with a non reinforced block and 2 bolt mains is not a candidate for 20w oil no matter how large the sump.

If xW20w is in the owners manual as a year round viscosity the engine can use it without damage or excess wear and tear in most situations in the country the car was sold in.
Whether its optimal or not in all conditions is open to debate but thats another story.

IMHO back specing is mugs game, a hail Mary pass if you will by the manufacturers to cash in on CAFE credits.
Take the older Ford modulars they back spec the thing to 20w but have a proviso that GVW cant go over xxxx pounds.
Thats a sure indicator that something in that engine is not up to snuff that has been corrected in later variants.
Personally i wouldn't put xw20 anywhere near that engine for year round use.

IMHO the thinner oils are a CAFE driven thing but that doesn't mean the engine cant be modified to use it.
Take unleaded fuel, in the beginning there were lots of problems with valves but technology and better metallurgy took care of that issue, now no one even thinks about no lead fuel.

I have nothing against 20w, 30w, 40w oil they all have their place what i do have a problem with is some posters giving the advice to use thinner oils in engines that were not spec for it because it can damage the engine.
The same cannot be said for using a 30w in a 20w engine, where no damage will occur.

Just a morning rant and my 2c nothing more.
 
Trav, I respectfully disagree with some of the above^^^.

I think displacement, reciprocating weight, power density, etc., must be factored in every bit as much as bottom end specs when choosing oil viscosity. Oil temp control is also critical, and just one more factor.

I definitely believe a small displacement N/A 4 banger with low power density (~1 hp/ci) would be much more likely to survive on lightweight oil than a larger, higher powered motor. Turbos etc. of course need better stuff.

The number one Ford builder in the country uses 10W oil on his dyno queens, rips out some pretty big numbers without damage. This is done on older designs as well, without the fat bearings and ultra bolted mains you reference. I imagine what he's done is really finish the surfaces carefully and get a lot of oil pushed through there during operation.
 
Steve i agree with what your saying my comments are nothing but generalizations at best.
Some of the older V8 blocks were super strong with decent cranks right out of the box.
I guess knowing what the blocks potential is and the materials used helps the builder decide how low he can go before crank or block flex takes the bearings out.

Some little 4 bangers have 5 main bearings and a strong crank OEM. Look at some of the Honda engines then look at the V6 with 4 mains and a cast cast crank. Your right the 4 banger will most likely do better on xw20.

I am just trying to bring engine design into the equation of this thinner/thicker is better lunacy that has gripped BITOG as of late.
Cripes its like there are 2 camps on this board thin and thick.In reality there are only a few real die hards that claim thinner is better or thicker is better.
 
When choosing an oil, I consider the things mentioned by Trav and Steve, and consider the conditions it will encounter and any lube related issues known for that engine family. I then make my final selection based on the following:

A little thicker than necessary might cost me 0.1 MPG.
A little thinner than necessary will cost me an engine.

Ed
 
Originally Posted By: blackman777
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
I do not know how good the XW20 oils of today are, but, back in the 1950's everyone used straight 20 weights.
There's a huge difference between 20W-20 oils like back in the fifties, and modern 5W-20 oils


OK, besides being thinner in very cold weather, what are some of the differences? Would my 1954 Ford , which gave no indication of being worn out at 140,000 hard young man miles, have been in much better shape on today's 5W20's? I might mention that this Ford engine had mechanical (solid) valve lifters, that usually require some adjustment when they wear and get noisy. The ones in my engine never got noisy.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I always go with the thickest oil recommended via fsm.


Me too. Back in the day, before Mobil 1 came out in the 70's and multigrades had replaced the single weights of the 50's, I usually used 10W40, and no oil change was complete without adding a can of STP oil treatment.

Nowadays, my vehicle is a 2005 Nissan Pathfinder 4.0 V-6. The owner's manual says to use 5W30, 10W30, or 10W40 motor oil. I still use Mobil 1, and my present choice is their 0W40. My Pathfinder does not use a measurable amount of oil in my usual one year, about 9,000 mile OCI. I have not used any oil additive since beginning to use M1 in 1977.
 
20 grades still scare me. I used AFE and pp 5w-20. Both seemed fine until I just changed the oil. I used a gallon of eneos 0w-20 and 2 quarts of M1 0w-40.
Now then bottom end doesn't sound diesel like and all I can hear is the injector pulse.
I don't think I'll ever truly be over my thicker is better thinking,but it doesn't mean the oils aren't good.
 
Originally Posted By: shell_user
Clevy, so are ya saying my T5 10W30/QSUD 0W20 blend in my 91' chevy is too thick then? I kinda like it.


Don't go putting words in my mouth. Chevy engines do well on most any oil. Your particular driving conditions make that mix probably perfect.
If its running good,and its quiet don't change anything.
I plan on trying a bit thinner oil in my chev 5.3.
 
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
Originally Posted By: blackman777
Originally Posted By: 1999nick
I do not know how good the XW20 oils of today are, but, back in the 1950's everyone used straight 20 weights.
There's a huge difference between 20W-20 oils like back in the fifties, and modern 5W-20 oils


OK, besides being thinner in very cold weather, what are some of the differences? Would my 1954 Ford , which gave no indication of being worn out at 140,000 hard young man miles, have been in much better shape on today's 5W20's? I might mention that this Ford engine had mechanical (solid) valve lifters, that usually require some adjustment when they wear and get noisy. The ones in my engine never got noisy.


In the late 60s and early 70s I used Valvoline 20wt HD in the winter and never had any problems with it in a 69 Ford Fairlane. Like you, I also started using M1 5-20 in 1978 in engines calling for 10-40. Todays M1 0-20 is outstanding and I would recommend it in any engine calling for a 20wt oil. As I did with the old M1 5-20 I still do 10K OCIs.
 
Originally Posted By: shell_user
You could put a 0w30 in your chevy Clevy.


I've got PYB in it now. 5w-30. I want to experiment with slightly thinner oil. It has over 250k on it and I've got a low mile spare engine for it. I want to see for myself if a slightly thinner oil will affect this particular high mile motor.
I'll be tearing the engine down after my testing is complete because I'm going to rebuild it. I'm giving the truck to my boy and want it to be as near bulletproof as possible.
 
You obviously didn't read the article.

Quote:
Federal-Mogul provides both copper/lead and aluminum bearings. But perceptions are changing with respect to aluminum versus copper/lead," said Federal-Mogul's Ron Thompson. "Most of the original equipment manufacturers are going to aluminum bearings, as are a growing number of rebuilders in the aftermarket. Many people are switching to aluminum because it provides improved durability and better control over tolerances.

"Overplated bearings tend to trap and hold dirt that can score the crankshaft. But aluminum bearings tend to flush out debris rather than hold it. Aluminum bearing alloys also contain silicone which helps resist seizure and actually polishes the crank.

"I can see the day when traditional copper/lead bearings may only be used for racing," said Thompson.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
You obviously didn't read the article.

Quote:
Federal-Mogul provides both copper/lead and aluminum bearings. But perceptions are changing with respect to aluminum versus copper/lead," said Federal-Mogul's Ron Thompson. "Most of the original equipment manufacturers are going to aluminum bearings, as are a growing number of rebuilders in the aftermarket. Many people are switching to aluminum because it provides improved durability and better control over tolerances.

"Overplated bearings tend to trap and hold dirt that can score the crankshaft. But aluminum bearings tend to flush out debris rather than hold it. Aluminum bearing alloys also contain silicone which helps resist seizure and actually polishes the crank.

"I can see the day when traditional copper/lead bearings may only be used for racing," said Thompson.



Alloy bearings are cheaper and they don't last, that is the only reason why there is a move to use more alloy by folks like VW in particular. They probably won't wear out within the warranty period too often, but the Kap figure for them means the oil film is so thin they rely on AW and EP additives in the oil, which is one reason for keeping the OCI figures short (Or reducing them for one GM model).
The main cost of a plain bearing is materials not surface preparation, if they wanted the engine to last longer on thin oil they would just polish up the old bearings to a greater degree.
A particle streak does not last as long in an alloy bearing due to the softer metal, but it does just as much damage, so I expect the PR folks are trying to use that fact to say they are better, whilst avoiding the fact they are not made in the US or EU are recently back specced to some 3rd world country because the original version lasted too long.
 
Last edited:
I think if the engine is almost-always hot, then a xW-30 or xW-40 weight will be okay.
There's not much thickness difference from the xW-20 weight at operating temperature
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom