"Tight Engines" need 0W-20 he claims

[Ram01]

Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: Ram01
A 30wt is the way to go if you are doing a lot of highway driving. You will burn oil using a 20wt doing highway driving. I don't have time to keep checking oil . So I use 5w30 in my 13malibu 2.5 ecotec DI . Which calls for a 5w20. No change in MPG at all and no oil burning


Three cars here: two with 5w/20, one with 0w/20. Lots of highway driving, no oil consumption by any of them. Have you tried 5w/20 in your Malibu post break-in?

Well I used 5w20 for the first 20k there was alittle burning. So i replace the pcv valves and want up to 5w30 haven't had a problem yet

 

[Ram01]

Oh I'm at 40k

 

[homeyclaus]

Originally Posted By: Justin251
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
You guys that are running 0W-20, do you notice any louder than usual engine noise ?


No and mine is known for "hemi tick"


And the Toyota VVTi's also tick. Ran/am running 0W20 in our 2011 4Runner and our current 2013 Tundra. Tow with both, wheel with both, did 20-25k/year with them.

But the 0W20 for CAFE standard reasons is malarkey, since there are still plenty of new cars sold using 5W30 (like my Focus ST) and thicker. Sure, there is pressure on manufacturers to improve mileage (from consumers, mainly) and emissions (from government, mainly), and 0W20 is likely a part of many a manufacturer's strategy, but to say it's the sole reason is pretty weak. If emissions standards drive the development of multi-viscosity oils and engines that run ever better, cleaner, and last ever longer, I am all for it.

 

[DeepFriar]

No one changes without a need. If CAFE can be achieved without 0W20 then it will be. But make no mistake, the move to lighter weight is specifically due to the need for more fuel economy. What other benefit can you name? Northern Virginia? Government employee homeyclaus?

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
No one changes without a need. If CAFE can be achieved without 0W20 then it will be. But make no mistake, the move to lighter weight is specifically due to the need for more fuel economy. What other benefit can you name? Northern Virginia? Government employee homeyclaus?


Well for one, specifying 0w-20 forces owners to use at least a synthetic blend or full syn.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: homeyclaus
Originally Posted By: Justin251
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
You guys that are running 0W-20, do you notice any louder than usual engine noise ?


No and mine is known for "hemi tick"


And the Toyota VVTi's also tick. Ran/am running 0W20 in our 2011 4Runner and our current 2013 Tundra. Tow with both, wheel with both, did 20-25k/year with them.

But the 0W20 for CAFE standard reasons is malarkey, since there are still plenty of new cars sold using 5W30 (like my Focus ST) and thicker. Sure, there is pressure on manufacturers to improve mileage (from consumers, mainly) and emissions (from government, mainly), and 0W20 is likely a part of many a manufacturer's strategy, but to say it's the sole reason is pretty weak. If emissions standards drive the development of multi-viscosity oils and engines that run ever better, cleaner, and last ever longer, I am all for it.
I spent my most of my working as a service tech. So to say I have about 180 Units of class credits just in taking automotive classes to keep up with all the technology.Continuing education is the fancy term I guess. I have had GM and Ford Corporate instructors discuss before the implementation of the 5W-30 G.M standard and the 5W-20 Ford standard. The reason for the recommendations of these viscosities and YES they are to Boost the Corporate MPGs. No malarky just fact.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
No one changes without a need. If CAFE can be achieved without 0W20 then it will be. But make no mistake, the move to lighter weight is specifically due to the need for more fuel economy. What other benefit can you name? Northern Virginia? Government employee homeyclaus?


The reason I use 0-20 is for the performance, not CAFE. The same reason I used M1 5-20 in 1978 before there was CAFE.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
No one changes without a need. If CAFE can be achieved without 0W20 then it will be. But make no mistake, the move to lighter weight is specifically due to the need for more fuel economy. What other benefit can you name? Northern Virginia? Government employee homeyclaus?


The reason I use 0-20 is for the performance, not CAFE. The same reason I used M1 5-20 in 1978 before there was CAFE.
I used M1 5W-20[the 25,000 mile oil]when it first came out and the Bearings probably "saw" a thicker oil than a 5w-30 to 10w-40 of the day due to the sheer from the viscosity modifiers .

 

[DeepFriar]

Quote:
The reason I use 0-20 is for the performance, not CAFE. The same reason I used M1 5-20 in 1978 before there was CAFE.


Certainly a valid thing to do for performance if you're willing to accept the tradeoffs. The discussion though was about why manufacturers are going to the lighter weights. The driver there (no pun intended) is CAFE.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Quote:
The reason I use 0-20 is for the performance, not CAFE. The same reason I used M1 5-20 in 1978 before there was CAFE.


Certainly a valid thing to do for performance if you're willing to accept the tradeoffs. The discussion though was about why manufacturers are going to the lighter weights. The driver there (no pun intended) is CAFE.


What tradeoffs?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
What tradeoffs?


* Volatility
* Lower Minimum oil film thicknesses
* Less hydrodynamic margin.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
What tradeoffs?


* Volatility
* Lower Minimum oil film thicknesses
* Less hydrodynamic margin.


Those aren't trade offs for engines calling for 20Wt oils. If they were then engines simply would not last as long as engines using 30wt. I learned that nearly 40 years. Ford has called for 20wt oils for 14-15 years now with no adverse effects. In fact I use M1 0-20 for the protection of my engines for high temp operation, very low temp starting, excellent engine cleanliness, and obvious excellent engine wear protection.

 

[crazyoildude]

not true ... Engines are much tighter now then 80 years ago

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
not true ... Engines are much tighter now then 80 years ago


Really? Here's the rod bearing clearances for a 75 year old John Deere. They are tighter than the current Ford 5.0 because the journals are larger diameter, making the effective clearance smaller.

1941 John Deere connecting rod: 0.001-0.003, 2.75 diameter
2011 Ford 5.0 connecting rod: 0.0011-0.0027, 2.086 diameter

Ed

 

[Shannow]

following on from Ed's post...

The model A had 0.001" main bearing clearance and 0.001" rod bearing clearance.

0.0011 doesn't seem to me the be "much tighter"...or even "tighter"

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
following on from Ed's post...

The model A had 0.001" main bearing clearance and 0.001" rod bearing clearance.

0.0011 doesn't seem to me the be "much tighter"...or even "tighter"


0.0011" is looser by a minuscule amount (0.0001").

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
What tradeoffs?


* Volatility
* Lower Minimum oil film thicknesses
* Less hydrodynamic margin.


Those aren't trade offs for engines calling for 20Wt oils. If they were then engines simply would not last as long as engines using 30wt. I learned that nearly 40 years. Ford has called for 20wt oils for 14-15 years now with no adverse effects. In fact I use M1 0-20 for the protection of my engines for high temp operation, very low temp starting, excellent engine cleanliness, and obvious excellent engine wear protection.


In your earlier post you had said that you used the lighter weight for increased "performance". I am aware of competitive situations where that is indeed the case. I assumed you meant you did it to pull more horsepower out of the engine. That too is possible but there is obviously a point at which you must use a more appropriate product if you wish the engine to hold together. That's what I meant by tradeoffs. I don't know anyone going racing whose first thought is "I wonder which 0W20 I should use?" no matter what street oil was originally specced for the engine. And again, the discussion was about why OEM's are going to lighter weights. For CAFE.

 

[Justin251]

I think top fuel dragsters use like a 10wt.

Redline and royal purple make one.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Justin251
I think top fuel dragsters use like a 10wt.

Redline and royal purple make one.


What would be the viscosity of these oils at the end of a 300 mile highway drive, versus 5 seconds into it from near cold ?

Even Redline say not to use the oil over 160F.

 

[crazyoildude]

Today the machining process alone is totally different then 80 yrs ago.
That is another reason engines last a lot longer and have more h.P. I was not around 80 yrs ago at least not in this life but i do know engines have come a long way. It's coming to the point that it is getting harder and harder to bore an engine because the chambers are becoming closer and closer and the rings bearings and even the bolts in many engines have totally changed becoming so light that they can almost blow away in the wind.I have been in the engine business a long time and i have seen changes that you could not dream of 60 years ago.