thin perhaps not as good as i thought

[MarkStock]

I've driven in Germany and seen plenty of small engine cars on the autobahn. And in general, I feel Germans push their engines harder than elsewhere, regardless of whether the engine is small. And because engines are on average smaller in Europe, and speeds in Germany are higher means those engines in Germany are certainly being driven harder on average.

That 1.8 when paired with a hybrid will not be pushed as hard. But on the autobahn without hybrid assistance, it will be. Still the difference in oil of a light 20 vs heavy 30 is interesting. But as Overkill said, when he gets above 150mph in his M5, the oil temp goes up significantly.

I took a Mercedes B class up to it's max speed on the autobahn and I wasn't in the end going that fast. What would be interesting to see is what happens to Toyota 0w20 when you run a Prius at max speed for sustained periods of time.

Maybe in the German owners manual there is a caveat as there often is with tire pressure.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
So your conclusion would be it's really because of the American people we have a limited choice of oil weights spec'd in manuals.


Well, if you change that to North American people, you may not be far off the mark. I certainly don't blame any automaker who markets vehicles in North America that makes it very difficult for them to run a 20w-50 in -40 and claim warranty issues. I've seen all kinds of idiotic oil choices used in the days when we had that "choice."

Of course, as I alluded to, there's far more in play than that. It's extremely difficult to reconcile all the competing desires and needs. 10,000 mile OCIs, fuel economy, and unfettered lubricant choice simply are competing needs and desires. Even setting aside fuel economy/CAFE, how do you tell someone it's okay to run 15w-40 or 20w-50 in a Saskatchewan summer and a 0w-20 in a Saskatchewan winter, yet tell them they should only change their oil every 7500 miles or so? People want infrequent maintenance, cheap oil with no synthetic requirement, and 20w-50 in the winter and 5w-20 in the summer? It just can't add up.

People have enough of a fit when they realize they need to buy dexos1, a 0w-20 synthetic, GC, or M1 0w-40, depending upon the application. We should return seasonal oil choices to the mix?

I'm the first to say that one should be able to use 15w-40 in a newer MB or the like over short OCIs when it doesn't have the snot driven out of it and when the climate is suitable, or that GM should allow non-dexos1 conventional 5w-30 for suitably short OCIs. However, I see the manufacturers' point. Someone will run the 15w-40 for 20000 miles and in the winter and complain, or someone will follow the GM OLM while using conventional 5w-30.

They could, I suppose, create additional service categories beyond severe and normal. They could have a BITOGer category for those that understand viscosity and sensible OCIs and an idiot category (which they have now) recommending one viscosity all the time. I don't think calling it the idiot category would be very marketable, though.

In the end, though, I don't let it worry me too much. Manufacturers' recommendations work very well in the vast majority of cases. Of course, they make mistakes now, and they also made them back in the days of "choice." VW/Audi minimized choice because of optimistic OCIs on conventional oils, and some of us remember how well the 10w-40 "choice" worked for GMs in the day.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I would not run a 30w or 40w anything in Arctic climates if 20w was available but on the other hand i wouldn't run 20w in the Southern US states or hot climates in the summer either.


Hey, Trav, I must be more of a "thick oil" guy than you, because I've never used anything lighter than a 30 grade in -40!

So, you definitely cannot be called a "rabid thick oil guy."

 

[Coprolite]

If engineers thought XwXXwas optimal for their vehicle, the dealers would have in stock to service their vehicles.......


Baloney

Economics rule the roost, not engineers. A wide variety of oils will ensure a healthy lifespan for an engine. Dealers won't sacrifice profit for another unmeasurable 10% of engine life for the average consumer that is lucky to remember to change their oil.

 

[buster]

All of this is really a non-issue and here is why.

1. Cars are lasting longer than ever, despite the move to 20 grade oils. The data shows this.

2. OEM's DO test engines for durability and when they call for a 20 grade, that is all you really need. Ford found their 5w20, at the time, outperformed their 5w30.

3. Viscosity is one characteristic of an oil.

4. Wear control and proof of performance is demonstrated by industry standard testing and OEM engine testing, not internet engineers that have zero testing other than feel and a $30 UOA.

There are always trade-offs when you're dealing with complex formulations and specific formulating goals.

 

[buster]

Think about how stupid people are to assume that just because the move to fuel efficient oils is driven by fuel efficiency somehow means that durability was ignored. Anyone who has spent enough time on here should know better.

Reality is, for the way most people drive, these new low viscosity oils are a good thing. If you're tracking the car and driving 150mph that changes things.

I like Mobil's AFE oils for high performance cars that need a 0w20. AFE 0w30 has a nice in between viscosit with a HT/HS of only 3.0.

 

[MarkStock]

2 great posts in a row buster!

Engineers do the thorough testing.

They distill their findings into simple rules for 99.99999% of the population to follow.

The odd person pops up on BITOG and claims it's all a conspiracy because they don't get to choose what oil they can use to maintain a lifetime warranty.

 

[Trav]

When I'm in Germany i drive a large car mostly on trips and use either a motorcycle of my sons Ford Ka for around town.
Sure there are a lot of cracker boxes on the autobahns but the car companies don't differentiate between city and high speed when specing oil although there are a few alternatives weights that can be used.

My old 911 turbo (930 US) was murder on 40w oil, i ran 10w60 in that one until we swapped the engine for a modern water boxer drive train.
The difference between a HTHS 2.6 or whatever 0w20 is and a HTHS 3.5 in the same Toyota engine is enough of a difference to raise questions about the manufacturers motivation IMO.

 

[Trav]

I guess i must be a closet thin oil guy.

 

[antiqueshell]

@ Trav:

What oil weight would you recommend for the
old 2L ABA 4 cylinder engine in a OBD II 1996 VW Golf driven in the Southeast USA?

Ambient temps are no more than about 95 in summer (usually in the upper 80s to low 90s) and no lower than the lower 30s in the winter.

 

[SlipperyPete]

I would prefer using a Xw20 in a vehicle speced for it, whether or not other grades were listed as alternatives. I am hesitant to make that known however, due to the thin oil supporters who can't seem to abide disagreement without referring to their own opinions as fact, calling others stupid, or trying to dismiss them as conspiracy theorists.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Still pretending to be an expert? We have real experts weighing in and their views differ from yours, why? I tend to take the side of real experts in this discussion, not a book worm, sorry if that offends you. I've got a real keen sense too, worked in the automotive industry, as well as a machine shop. I've been around the block a few times too. I do a fair amount of reading also, that Ford article is a lot of hype to ease the minds of concerned consumers. Obviously our opinions differ.

BTW no conspiracy, CAFE. You're the one who used the word conspiracy not me.


I note you didn't answer the multiple choice question.

Conspiracy instead of CAFE. I'm using the word that describes your viewpoint, whether you realize it or not. I've already said that the 5w20 standard for Ford is in large part incentivized by CAFE but that doesn't mean that engineers didn't match engines to oil technology they created for it.

I mean 1) There is a Ford oil standard that they created as part of this and 2) There are exceptions such as Ecoboost that precisely suggest they don't use lighter oils because their engineering tells them not to. Btw, did you ever consider that for Ecoboost, they get CAFE credits for the improved fuel economy? As they could with more diesels. Both being European strengths and strategies and not until recently American and Japanese approaches. Are you going to complain now that CAFE has given you too much choice on how to get more fuel efficient vehicles?

You keep on picking on the evidence I and others bring forward. I'm generally limiting my comfort on 20 weight oil to my own personal requirements to run it in a 2004 Ford.

You have a wider argument you are making about your own personal situation, so you need to bring in your own facts to back those up rather than just state your feeling. You've spent all your time using conspiracy theory type techniques on others posts, without specifying really what your own personal concerns are. Especially since you've now admitted that you run 20 weight oil and you have a lifetime warranty. Consequently, as everyone is concluding, you're simply coming across as complaining about nothing except that this was somehow foistered on you, against your will, in November 2012. Oh woe is you.

Now about the information from Ford in 2004. That information was for dealers, not consumers (how easily you get simple facts wrong), and yes it is to make them feel better. Not because they are hiding information, but because the people they are dealing with have to undergo switching costs to 5w20, and as you know, dealers just care about money. Additionally, most of the service people at dealers hold totally irrational emotion based views. And it was no surprise to just hear from you that your background is similar.

What kind of views and expertise am I talking about? All those service folks who said that 5w20 was brown water. How about the service manager at one of my nearby Ford dealers who personally re-measured my 60k rotors after I said his tech was wrong to say I needed new rotors, and gave me new measurements that were more than the thickness of new Motorcraft rotors. How about the service manager at another Ford dealer whose factory trained technicians had incorrectly installed my fuel filter causing it to leak, after replacing the entire fuel lines from tank to engine, asking me why I wanted an independent inspection ("You don't trust us?"), after which we found 2 other points of failure in the work.

You can call me a book worm if you like. It doesn't insult me. What I know is that I've read a lot about all sorts of mechanical things, to know I have more knowledge than most mechanics and service people on many topics that are of interest to me.

And that I haven't read enough about many things that means I know more than several people here, and certainly not the engineers. And that I have enough skill to evaluate the evidence from people who do know more than me to come to the right conclusions.

I don't think you're anywhere near that level because you've misrepresented and misunderstood things so often.

And I'll give you an example of where being a bookworm helps a little. A lot of folks here speculate about fuel system cleaning. There's a lot of distrust about what cleaner contains what concentration of cleaner, there's talk about whether to use shock treatments or maintenance treatments, what driving cycle is best. I, the book worm, went and read the entire original Techron study from the 1970s.

- now, I hear you jump out of your seat, and immediately start penning a response about what does 1970 have to do with now, but anyway -

Reading that study as well as doing some investigation on different manufacturers, tells me which brands to use, which ones are most cost effective, how to use them, and when to use them.

Of course, you can be amongst those who'd rather look down on such approaches, and believe what they want to believe. It's obviously working out well for you as it led you to buy a Chrysler for which you're complaining about a lifetime warranty. Life must be good.


Yep life is good, in fact, its great. I have no complaints about my Jeep, in fact its better than I expected. MB gives you a choice of oil to use, Ford and Chrysler doesn't. Does that mean they build a better engine than MB?

As far as my beliefs are concerned, I much like you choose to believe what I want to believe. Based on information from people a lot brighter than you, who are real experts on the subject. Someone with your credentials will never sway nor impress me. Now show me your degree in automotive engineering, or anything related to lubrication and I'm all ears. Ed Hackett, Shannow, and Trav are people I consider experts on this site along with a few other members. I probably read as much or more on this topic than you did, our only difference is I realize how CAFE is tying the hands of the auto maker.

Conspiracy = CAFE. Lousy attempt at mind reading.

Yes I use 20 grade oil, why? For the short trips the vehicle is driven, 20 grade oil is a wise choice. However as I've said more times than I can count, one size doesn't fit all. Why is that so hard to grasp for someone who comes across as being an authority on oil?

The so called info for dealers was sent by Ford to their dealers for them to use for customers who questioned the thin oil. I have a Ford service writer friend who had to deal with answering customers about the thinner oil, he'd hand them a copy and let them read it.

 

[Drew2000]

So, 5W30 is okay? Unless you need 5W20....

 

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
MB gives you a choice of oil to use, Ford and Chrysler doesn't.


I have more choices available to me for my Ford than I do for my Mercedes. And it's far cheaper too. About 5 times cheaper.

 

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I realize how CAFE is tying the hands of the auto maker.


Can you explain that more?

 

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
The so called info for dealers was sent by Ford to their dealers for them to use for customers who questioned the thin oil. I have a Ford service writer friend who had to deal with answering customers about the thinner oil, he'd hand them a copy and let them read it.


I don't think it was meant to be handed to customers. It contained all sorts of information on what to hold in bulk oil tanks, what vehicles were not subject to 5w20, how to get hold of new products, whether they could mix old and newer bottles of 5w20, how to deal with customer objections, an explanation of why MC oil was cheaper in Walmart. Really not the kind of thing that should be handed to a customer, but I am totally not surprised that a friend of yours / a service advisor, maybe the same chap who told me my 60k rotors were thicker than the spec for new rotors, would do something like that because he couldn't be bothered to read it and explain it in his own words.

But admit it, you really didn't read the article did you? Otherwise you wouldn't have said it was for customers in the first place, and then covered that error by saying it was for service advisors to help them deal with customers, when that was perhaps just 5% of the content.

 

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
However as I've said more times than I can count, one size doesn't fit all. Why is that so hard to grasp for someone who comes across as being an authority on oil?


Hmmmm, let me see .........

Maybe it's because, for a particular application, the manufacturer is saying that I should use that one size for all situations.

And on the other side, I just have you saying again and again "one size does not fit all".

Ford, after doing torture testing in extreme cold and heat, taking fully loaded vehicles to 250,000 miles and with 15k oil change intervals, concluded that 5w20 to their spec provided the best combination of fuel economy and durability.

So who should I listen to? Ford or demarpaint who questions whether that testing even took place?

Put yourself in my shoes and answer your question.

 

[MarkStock]

Btw, so that it's out there, the specification difference for Ford's 5w20 spec vs their 5w30 spec is just three items a) Fuel economy, b) HTHS should be 2.6 in 5w20 vs 2.9 in 5w30 and c) Viscosity at 100c to be in the 20 weight and 30 weight ranges. All other tests had to achieve the same results between 5w20 & 5w30.

The spec can be found here:

http://www.ilma.org/resources/ford_service_fill_specs.pdf

And the extracts of the 3 specs that needed to be different is here:

HTHS Viscosity, mPa-sec @ 150°C & 106 1/sec (ASTM D 4683 or CEC L-36T-84)
New 5W-20 Oil 2.6 min
New 5W-30 Oil 2.9 min

Sequence VIB (ASTM D 6837)
SAE 5W-20
FEI @ 16 Hours 2.3% min
FEI @ 96 Hours 2.0% min
SAE 5W-30
FEI @ 16 Hours 1.8% min
FEI @ 96 Hours 1.5% min

Viscosity @ 100 °C (ASTM D 445), mm2/s, 5W-20 5.6 - Viscosity @ 100 °C (ASTM D 445), mm2/s, 5W-30 9.3 - <12.5

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I said sustained driving at 150Mph.

My car has an oil cooler, I have to beat the tar out of it to elevate the oil temperatures.

That being said, there are a number of videos on youtube of my car, and others like it, doing 190Mph. The increase in oil temperature as the car goes over 150Mph is very obvious. At speeds north of 150Mph, the car is working much harder, faster than that, harder still. I'm spinning 7K at 190Mph. The car is fully capable of sitting like that for hours, that's how it was designed. That's also why it has a large sump, spec's a relatively heavy oil and has an oil cooler.

How was it feel at 190 MPH in the M5 ? And where did you get to drive at that elevated speed ?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I guess i must be a closet thin oil guy.

Just remember, if we ever have a disagreement over an oil grade, you've used 5w-20 and I have never touched the stuff.

Maybe the second my G37 warranty is up, I should run 15w-40 HDEO in the summer and 5w-20 in the winter and give everyone a fit!