What makes an engine 20W friendly?

[1999nick]

IMHO, most engines today would benefit from a diet of straight 20W motor oil year round. In really cold climates, a straight 10W would probably be fine. Straight weights would be fine for long OCI's, too. With no need for a lot of VII's to make them multigrade, they would hold up much longer than multigrade motor oil.

The 20W straight weight oils used back in the 40's and 50's seemed to give fine engine longevity. The oil filtration system in those cars was often of a rudimentary nature. I recollect that oil filters were an option on Chevrolets until the advent of hydraulic valve lifters. My 1954 Ford served me well for 140,000 miles without a significant sign of engine wear, using straight 20W oil.

 

[Jay]

quote:

---

Originally posted by zoomzoom:
Brons2 take a closer look!
Compare M1 0W-20 to GC 0W-30:

-M1 produced almost twice the lead of GC

-M1 produced almost twice the chromimum of GC

-M1 produced almost 45% more copper compared to GC

-M1 produced almost 30% more Al compared to GC

So in 10K interval that I usualy run this is how would my wear metals look like with M1 and GC

M1 0W-20**GC 0W-30
AL ** 8 ** 5.7
CR ** 2 ** 1.1
FE ** 24 ** 24
CU ** 10 ** 5.7
PB ** 22 ** 13.6

---

I had a closer look at your report and there are too many variables changing to attribute your differences in wear metals to viscosity alone. You aren't accounting for the different number of total miles on the car, weather, different driving conditions, different oil brands, etc. There's break-in wear on some of the reports and the M1 0w-20 test was only 1/2 the duration of some of the others. It's an interesting report, but it's a poor viscosity comparison.

 

[2004 F150 4x4]

Does anyone know if the 5.4l Ford Engine is of the "roller-cam bearing" design?

 

[zoomzoom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by zoomzoom:
Brons2 take a closer look!
Compare M1 0W-20 to GC 0W-30:

-M1 produced almost twice the lead of GC

-M1 produced almost twice the chromimum of GC

-M1 produced almost 45% more copper compared to GC

-M1 produced almost 30% more Al compared to GC

So in 10K interval that I usualy run this is how would my wear metals look like with M1 and GC

M1 0W-20**GC 0W-30
AL ** 8 ** 5.7
CR ** 2 ** 1.1
FE ** 24 ** 24
CU ** 10 ** 5.7
PB ** 22 ** 13.6

---

I had a closer look at your report and there are too many variables changing to attribute your differences in wear metals to viscosity alone. You aren't accounting for the different number of total miles on the car, weather, different driving conditions, different oil brands, etc. There's break-in wear on some of the reports and the M1 0w-20 test was only 1/2 the duration of some of the others. It's an interesting report, but it's a poor viscosity comparison.

---

Jay

When I started using synthtic oil car already had 36K so break in was done long ago...

GC Was run in the winter(and that winter was quite a bit colder then normal) so lots of cold starts(in 15-20 F range)...Where M1 0W-20 was in at spring time and had maybe a few cold starts(30ish F).

M1(0W-20) showed more wear in fewer miles under less severe conditions. I was affraid of this and that is why I chose to run it only to 5K OCI. Just to make sure it could give me adequate protection. But after seeing the wear rates I decided to go with M1 0W-40 for the summer and I have feeling that UOA after 10K will be the best so far...

 

[01CivicLX]

Well I have used nothing but 5W-20 conventional oil in my 01 Civic since buying it new. The brands I used are Texaco Havoline , Motorcraft - these 2 were the only brands I could find for some time. I used Valvoline a few times and Castrol GTX is what is in the car now.

I guess the real test is how long the engine performs well - mine now has 100,400 miles and is running great - no drop off in fuel mileage. I try to change the oil every 4000 miles. Hopefully the engine will still run the same at 200,000 miles!