Then tell us what you believe provides the very best for this situation, and then back it up with the equivalent amount of evidence, to include hard data, that the current 5w20s have accumulated. So far, as someone else so eloquently stated, all that has been provided is "conjecture, weak inference, and habitual inclination."
What is the best oil for your Honda VTEC engine? Check this out.
- Thread starter Accord2005NJ
- Start date
- Status
Good point. That's why it's highly recommended to use the services of Terry if your truly looking for the ultimate, and regularly tearing down your engine isn't practical. It is also why several different live engine tests are used for both API and ACEA certifications.
Another way to get hard data is use oil from a company that publishes it's API certification tests results.
http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/704.pdf
Although I highly recommend you read up and understand the intricacies of these tests and the protocols they're run under before you do so.
I outlined some of it above. If your conjecture is easily substantiated, surely there should be numerous UOAs showing it's superiority in this application at least some of the time. You can also get SAE, JSAE and JSME papers online. Plenty of research on the web you can find. Do your homework, no one is going to spoon feed you here.
JHZR2
Staff member
If the claims are really, actually true (I have no reason to believe that they are not, based upon UOA, etc.), then these threads are really just a waste of bandwidth.
If they are actually true, then this argument is similar to any other argument that exists where people are afraid of embracing modern technology. As I have claimed more than once... basestock film thickness can provide protection, and chemistry can provide protection. You can trust either one... both do not offer any advantage to just one. Why cant people accept that chemistry can do just as fine a job in protecting their engine as fluid dynamics? We trust chemistry to rustproof our cars, to catalyze our exhaust, to protect us whe our airbags go poof... is it really that tough to trut it to protect the innards of our engine?
JMH
OK
I've done some search.
Here is what I've found.
Motor Oils - Fuel Economy vs Wear.
Written by Blaine Ballentine, Central Petroleum Company
Comments?
For your money and women?
[/QB][/QUOTE]Hi Accord, would you mind sharing your actual wear data proving that 5W-20 is worse? Obviously the many mechanics and family members must have lots of data proving it, right? Or is it just more conjecture based on "gut feeling"? I do 5k OCIs on my CR-V, and it uses zero oil after 31,000 miles. Oh yeah, and it's a manual that often gets revved to 4-5k. When you can actually prove it has more wear, by all means, share with the rest of the class. [/QB][/QUOTE]
31,000 miles is nothing. There were many posts here about why thicker oil is better (i.e. thicker film particle protection etc.). How can you even use 31,000 miles as an example that the oil is the best (not adequeste - but the best) you can have? I can get 31,000 miles on ANY oil almost. Lets talk over 250k miles and then you got something.
31,000 miles is nothing. There were many posts here about why thicker oil is better (i.e. thicker film particle protection etc.). How can you even use 31,000 miles as an example that the oil is the best (not adequeste - but the best) you can have? I can get 31,000 miles on ANY oil almost. Lets talk over 250k miles and then you got something.
Hi,
I am not saying I am right. I am, however, saying that the fact that the rest of the world (yes, the much dislike it appears by some Europeans included with brands such as BMW, Audi and Honda/Toyota Europe) uses thicker oils, that clearances are the same, and common sense (i.e. film thickness, usage of thicker oils for racing for example) tells me this is all one big B.S. (5-20 oils that is).
Now, I do not excpect to convince anyone. I am just voicing my opinion, but when people tell me that 30,000 or so miles (or even 100k) on 5-20 oils (at 5k OICs) is a proof that the oil is great - I say no way. 30k? Cars can reach it on orange juice ha...ha...
Lets wait a few years and see how many cars on 5-20 oils reach 250K plus.
Very well said, Dave. And as a fellow engineer, I too was searching for some hard data back when I bought my 2002 Accord which specs 5w20 since I keep most of my cars for an average of 15-20 years. And they are driven very hard on the back roads in central Texas heat.
Having worked in the defense and automotive industry for many years, I actually had the opportunity to talk to several engine development engineers about my concern with 5w20 oils. And not one of them voiced any concern when it's used where spec-ed since they have plenty of data from severe dyno and fleet tests.
But being the stubborn engineer I am, I still wasn't satisfied and decided to conduct my own tests running everything from thin 0w20 to a thick 10w40 and used UOAs to see if there was any significant difference in wear metals. Result? No significant difference.
My results pretty much mirrored those obtained by user MNGopher in his 4.6 F150 oil test, except my oil consumption remained the same.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=002975
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001965
One also has to keep in mind that ~90% of your engine wear comes from cold starts. Thus even with a sub-optimal choice in oil, as long as it's kept uncontaminated and flowing properly, the most you will effect the life of the typical street engine is ~10% with oil selection. This is quite different than a race engine which may see a dozen or two cold starts in it's entire life, and spend most of it's time at WOT.
So...if thicker oil lets you sleep better at night, by all means use it. But let me suggest you look for a better oil, not necessarily the thicker oil.
[ June 20, 2006, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
So you "pick and choose" information?quote:
Originally posted by 427Z06:
So you "pick and choose" information?quote:
Originally posted by 427Z06:
Not at all. But to present one man's dated opinion without any support data versus the volumes of data on the other side of the debate is laughable. And we've seen that same reference used at least a hundred times. At least find something current and new.quote:
Originally posted by Accord2005NJ:
So you "pick and chose" information?quote:
Originally posted by 427Z06:
The wear metals amounts in the UOA samples do NOT always indicate wear.
Just take a look at an everage Redline sample.
The wear metals are almost always higher, sometimes much higher than the previous UOA's of the same engine running on a different oil.
Does it mean that Redline is a terrible oil???
On the contrary.
Just ask Terry Dyson.
I somewhat agree with you. Choosing an oil based on a few ppm of a particular wear metal over one OCI is foolish. However, if you see a magnitude increase in a well trended wear metal, you're pretty much assured you have more wear going on somewhere. But even then, one should have a professional tribolgist like Terry interpret the UOA results since amateurs can easily confuse chemistry with wear.
Excellent post, 427Z06. Too many people have a gut feeling and can't get past it. I have it too, but realize that data is the ultimate judge. I am curious about the 90% of wear happens from cold starts statement. I've heard it many times from many sources. What was the test data that led whoever to draw that conclusion? There must be assumptions like distance travelled between cold starts. What distance travelled corresponds to getting this result (e.g 10 miles, 20 miles, etc)? How much dependence does the result have on oil viscosity during a cold start vs how much it depends on less than optimal combustion (from cylinders being cold) and time needed to reach full oil flow throughout? I think that even if the oil's viscosity was 10 cst but the engine temp was "cold" like 40F degrees, there will still be the most wear during cold starts because of incomplete combustion (acids, moisture, fuel condensation) and the small delay of full oil flow. That is, even with optimal oil viscosity, the cold start event will cause more wear than normal useage.
You don't have to answer every question...just throwing them out there to give you an idea of what info I'd like to have. Thanks for any info. or thoughts.
You don't have to answer every question...just throwing them out there to give you an idea of what info I'd like to have. Thanks for any info. or thoughts.
Please, post the links to the volumes of data.
Is that raw data?
Or organized and analyzed data?
Was that data obtained in a controled manner?
Or just a bunch of meaningless UOAs?
UOA's are not any proof.
Are UOA's your only argument?
Is there anything you can post here?
Anything that supports your point in a clear and concise manner as in the just posted article?
Show me your articles printed in the industry publications please.
Or any other articles discussing the thin oils vs wear.
Then we'll laugh together.
Is that raw data?
Or organized and analyzed data?
Was that data obtained in a controled manner?
Or just a bunch of meaningless UOAs?
UOA's are not any proof.
Are UOA's your only argument?
Is there anything you can post here?
Anything that supports your point in a clear and concise manner as in the just posted article?
Show me your articles printed in the industry publications please.
Or any other articles discussing the thin oils vs wear.
Then we'll laugh together.
- Status
Similar threads
