What is the best oil for your Honda VTEC engine? Check this out.

[Alcibiades]

"You're assuming that the protection is just as good."

No so. I specifically said that the evidence so far does NOT show that the protection is NOT as good, and that this is exactly the problem, because in order to make a positive claim rather than a negative one ("5W-30 protects better," or, "5W-20 protects better"), we need exactly the kind of test you described, about which we already agreed three pages ago.

In other words, my intention was to clarify an issue with the propositional logic in this debate rather than to make a claim for or against an oil.

And still, I would add,

, I hope you are having as much fun as I am.

 

[Dave Sherman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buford T. Justice:
It seems quite obvious to me that those pounding their chests here about the virtues of 5W-20 seem to own Hondas and Fords and other vehicles with 4 cylinder engines.

---

On the contrary, it's the naysayers that are pounding their chests without evidence. In my vehicles that spec 5w20 for use, a V6 by the way, I use it. In the one's that don't, I don't use it. Let me remind you that Ford recommended 5w20 for it's modular V8s from it's reintroduction of the spec. Ford has built a lot of modular V8s.

---

Exactly!! Thank you for pointing that out 427. We may not know how well 5W-20 does for a long time, and individual mileage may vary. The naysayers just say things like "I think it's too thin" and "the Europeans use 5W-30". Yep, that's compelling proof. If the manufacturer says 5W-20 is okay, then they must be lying

. Everybody knows it's just to squeeze more gas mileage out, so it can't be any good.

Sigh. Sorry for sticking my $0.02 in another 5W-20 bashing thread. Guess I'll just take my chances using what my owner's manual says to use until somebody can prove definitively that 5W-20 causes significantly more wear based on real data.

BTW, my apologies to Accord2005NJ who started this thread, I'm not trying to say he's wrong. As 427 said, for all we know, he could be right.

 

[i]

Exactly. No science at all in this thread. The only way to really know is to get together (X) number of engines, all as close to identical as possible, measure them all internally beforehand, run them hard and identically on dynos, tear them back down, and remeasure. The number of engines (X) required to achieve statistical significance, as well as the measrurements differences required, are a matter of statistical formulas that I forgot long ago. Anyone who's studied a lot of stats can back me up here. I've never heard of read the results of such a test -- anything else except such a test is just jawboning.

Not only that, but the above conducted test only would tell us one thing: The difference between those two particular oils in that model engine only.

Say statistical significance requires 85 engines. Calculate the cost of the test. That's why no one has done it.

 

[Gary Allan]

I'm sure someone has. According to a former member, who was involved with engine development at GM, they do failure analysis on engines all the time. Cold starting them and immediately ramping them up to WOT and run them for xxx hours @ 150C oil temp ..etc..etc.

If sure Ford and everyone else does the same stuff. The only thing that they cannot do is manipulate time compression. They can only simulate the symptoms that arrise over time.


We're just not privileged to the results.

 

[surfstar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcibiades:
But if the evidence shows that the protection is just as good, what is the problem?

---

You're assuming that the protection is just as good.

---

And you're assuming that the protection isn't as good.

Pot: "Kettle you're black"

We all know what happens when we A$$uME.

 

[surfstar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GMorg:
Wow, this all sounds familiar. Maybe everyone all ready knows this, but data and/or facts are not valid arguing points against a belief. Data is great to influence what people think, but not what they believe, especially if they confuse what they believe with what they know.

---

Didn't you know that "Facts are meaningless; they can be used to prove anything." -Homer J. Simpson

 

[Buford T. Justice]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Huh? The writer of that opinion piece was commenting on oil that was spec-ed for some vehicles for about two years. In another post, someone was claiming we need 300K miles on a vehicle before we can trust manufacturer recommendations. Which is it folks?

---

The only part of that article that might fall into opinion are his recommendations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
On the contrary, it's the naysayers that are pounding their chests without evidence. In my vehicles that spec 5w20 for use, a V6 by the way, I use it. In the one's that don't, I don't use it. Let me remind you that Ford recommended 5w20 for it's modular V8s from it's reintroduction of the spec. Ford has built a lot of modular V8s.

---

Really? They appear to be the only ones at least taking the time to post links about it whereas the supporters never do. All the supporters generally say is that, "My owner's manual says that so that is what I am going to use."

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Just because you aren't aware of them doesn't mean there aren't others.

---

True, but he is the only one I know of on BITOG.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Another old and faulty arguement. Did you just crawl out from under a rock?

---

I think you did the climbing from under the rock. You are completely wrong. Have you researched CAFE? I have. Here read this from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration...

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

It says right there that they do indeed get credits that can be used to offset fines.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
That's funny. Discount one internet forum by referencing another.

---

??? I guess you are talking about the thread I started here about 5W-20 Articles in which I requested no forum posts from here or anywhere else. In fact, the first reply post to my original post was yours in which you offered no links to articles. Why participate if you have nothing to contribute? At any rate and if i have time, I might go to a few engine builder websites and see if I can dig up what they recommend viscosity-wise.

 

[Buford T. Justice]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
I still can't believe people are debating this. If you use the search function, you'll find many articles that show the testing that has been done with 20wt oils. Some of the facts I'll list are from these articles (I'm not going to look them all up)

---

Please post the direct links.

 

[Buford T. Justice]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Sherman:
Exactly!! Thank you for pointing that out 427. We may not know how well 5W-20 does for a long time, and individual mileage may vary. The naysayers just say things like "I think it's too thin" and "the Europeans use 5W-30". Yep, that's compelling proof. If the manufacturer says 5W-20 is okay, then they must be lying

. Everybody knows it's just to squeeze more gas mileage out, so it can't be any good.

Sigh. Sorry for sticking my $0.02 in another 5W-20 bashing thread. Guess I'll just take my chances using what my owner's manual says to use until somebody can prove definitively that 5W-20 causes significantly more wear based on real data.

BTW, my apologies to Accord2005NJ who started this thread, I'm not trying to say he's wrong. As 427 said, for all we know, he could be right.

---

The naysayers are posting links to articles. The supporters are not.

 

[Buford T. Justice]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
I'm sure someone has. According to a former member, who was involved with engine development at GM, they do failure analysis on engines all the time. Cold starting them and immediately ramping them up to WOT and run them for xxx hours @ 150C oil temp ..etc..etc.

If sure Ford and everyone else does the same stuff. The only thing that they cannot do is manipulate time compression. They can only simulate the symptoms that arrise over time.


We're just not privileged to the results.

---

Maybe we are albeit indirectly in regards to GM as they don't use nor recommend 5W-20 that last I heard.

 

[Drew99GT]

Buford, the quote on quote "supporters" aren't posting links and what not because they already have about 100000000000000000 times in the 6738987979834943279734250923 other threads about how 5w-20 will make your engine blow up. This subject has been debated so much that it's pointless. It really is religious! I suggest using the search button and you'll find mucho evidence posted by people like 427. But it doesn't matter because you won't believe it anyway!! So why ask for it?

By the way, apparently you missed the fact that there is a gentleman here that runs 0w-20 in his Ferrari, with UOA posted. And he lives in Florida and drives the car in soaring heat.

 

[vad]

Bufford,
the most of these guys have a completely different thought process.
All they can do just refer back to the countless UOA's, forum's members subjective observations, meaningless in the contest of this discussion UOA's, butt dynos, automaker's *B*S etc, etc.
They also have a problem finding articles to support their side with at least an appearance of being evenhanded (I don't see too many), to support their point.
And notice how quickly they become p-i-s-s-e-d off.

[ June 21, 2006, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: vad ]

 

[Dave Sherman]

Sounds like another thread going down in flames. Everyody draws their own conclusions, others disagree with those conclusions, and others end up more confused than ever.

About all I can conclude is that if I'm driving a giant SUV in the Sahara desert in 140 degree heat while towing a fifth wheel, I probably don't want to be using 5W-20. Instead, I drive a small SUV in moderate temps, I don't have a need to tow anything, and there's no definitive proof one way or the other that says it's doomed to premature death because it's using 5W-20. We have some UOAs that sound like it's okay, we've got some folks who have gotten over 100,000 miles with 5W-20, and other folks concluding that the engines with 5W-20 are doomed just because the car manufacturers were trying to get CAFE credits.

So my engine MAY not last 300,000 miles. I'm not losing sleep over it. But how long will it last? Who knows? If folks think I'm off my rocker for following my manufacturer's recommendations, fine. I'm not drawing conclusions between car manufacturers getting CAFE credits and screwing the consumer. Buford's articles say thinner oils don't protect as well. I can agree with that. But how much worse is it? That's what I'm looking for.

Even if folks have seen it before, here's my analogy. Sunscreen blocks some, but not all UV. A lead shield would block 100%. Can I still get sunburn, UV exposure, and possible skin cancer with only a thin layer of SPF 40? Absolutely! Does that mean I should never go outdoors without wearing a lead shield? No. I just be sensible about it and don't spend every daylight hour outside.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox. May the 5W-20 holy wars continue.

 

[Dave Sherman]

Before somebody points out my gaffe, I just realized an SUV can't tow a fifth wheel. Feel free to substitute "Really heavy trailer" for "fifth wheel"

 

[vad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Sherman:
Even if folks have seen it before, here's my analogy. Sunscreen blocks some, but not all UV. A lead shield would block 100%. Can I still get sunburn, UV exposure, and possible skin cancer with only a thin layer of SPF 40? Absolutely! Does that mean I should never go outdoors without wearing a lead shield? No. I just be sensible about it and don't spend every daylight hour outside.

---

Here is a solution.
Always wear light color clothing covering most of your body, a cap and sunglasses.
Not lead shield and very little of SPF 40 are required.
Works every time in San Diego.
SPF 40 creams work, but are quite messy and need to be reapplied regularly (short intervals) to keep protection.

So to continue your analogy, the lead shield would be 5w-40, clothing 5w-30 and sunblock - 5w-20.
Did I get it correctly?

 

[Dave Sherman]

Almost. I still keep my clothes on when going outside

. The sunscreen is for my neck and arms. Maybe 5W-20 is SPF 15 and 5W-30 is SPF 40. How's that?

 

[Alcibiades]

"most of these guys have a completely different thought process"

I don't know who "these guys" are, but I would be more cautious about claiming how "these guys" think about things. I have tried to lend some of my training in formal predicate logic and the philosophy of science to the discussion, and that is all. Furthermore, I have been careful only to speak for myself.

There simply is not enough evidence yet one way or the other. That is all that has been positively concluded. However, the evidence is growing, in the form of Hondas and Fords that have been running just fine on 5W-20 for several years now, that 5W-20 protects AS GOOD AS xW-30/40 (=protects NO LESS THAN xW-30/40). The evidence will probably continue to grow with Chrysler, and now Toyota. That represents a whole lot of engineers, who presumably know a whole lot more about engines and wear than most of us, that either agreed to the 5W-20 spec. or got bowled over by their superiors in pursuit of CAFE credits. Meanwhile, most of the cars keep running on and on and on. If one of those manufacturers backs off the 5W-20 spec. because of engine problems related to wear, then we'll have our answer, probably. But that doesn't seem likely to happen.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Buford T. Justice:
Have you researched CAFE? I have. Here read this from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration...
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

It says right there that they do indeed get credits that can be used to offset fines.

---

Yes, I've researched CAFE when the 5w20 question came up for me back in 2002. After reading through the numerous documents it looked almost exactly like what GM went through back in the 80's with 5w30s.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/cd8411.pdf

Similar rules applied by the EPA back then with the similar resistance to change by the consumer.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000521

I'm guessing that GM decided to let Ford and others blaze the trail this go around after their experience.

As a few have repeatedly mentioned, many us have discussed this ad infinitum. I continue to recommend you newbies use the search function. Not everyone is going to have the time to repeatedly look up the same links from years ago and repost them.

As an aside, there's a respected member here that will confirm that I once tried to get this forum to consolidate the 5w20 debate into single sticky thread so we wouldn't have to go through this every other week. It was a non starter from what I recall.

 

[Accord2005NJ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Sherman:

I'll be extremely disappointed if it only makes it 249,998 miles

.

---

249,999.99 does not count

 

[Accord2005NJ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by surfstar:

Originally posted by GMorg:
[qb] Didn't you know that "Facts are meaningless; they can be used to prove anything." -Homer J. Simpson

---