30w in a 20w engine (2GR-FKS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Didn't say all that.The Café requirements are greater than the mfgs can timely meet so we end up with Turbos in economy cars and increasingly thin oils to max out cafe testing results to the exclusion of long term durability. Ever try to remove a turbo so that you can change your spark plugs?


That's a silly blanket statement. If you mean the Civic, the turbo generates nearly 180HP. Ten or 15 years ago, that's not economy that's performance in a small car. Honda isn't just going for fuel economy, they're competing in a tough segment against Mazda which has run circles around them for two decades in terms of performance and driveability. The issue isn't the turbo scorching the "thin oils" in the Honda, the issue is fuel dilution!

The 1998 Civic Si had a DOHC VTEC 1.6 with 160 HP. It wasn't that hard to access that power with a manual transmission. Heck - I remember the Celica GT-S had 180 HP out of a naturally aspirated 1.8.
 
Originally Posted By: y_p_w
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
For that matter, what if it was a 0W50, what would you suggest is likely to happen in that instance with start-up wear ?


IDK, none are generally available here, and I can't imagine any being spec'd save for some Ford performance applications that call for 5W-50...

The odd thing about 0W-X oils is that the 0W end only describes flow at some supremely low Arctic (or Antarctic) temperature. I would expect that a 0W-50 oil would probably be thicker than a 5W-20 oil at typical summer temperatures around where I live.


No question. The only one I think we can buy here are boutique (and maybe Mobil 1) racing oils, without checking...
 
Originally Posted By: y_p_w


The 1998 Civic Si had a DOHC VTEC 1.6 with 160 HP. It wasn't that hard to access that power with a manual transmission. Heck - I remember the Celica GT-S had 180 HP out of a naturally aspirated 1.8.


Yes, but the Si was a special (performance) edition that Honda never sold in America and only did so under pressure at the dawn of the internet. The regular Civics were around 106HP then (without checking, don't feel like Googlemania tonight)..

The current turbo Civics are just the regular cars in varying HP displacements. The Si and Mugen will be much higher...
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Just like you knew that thinner oils tend to flow better at start up and before operating temps and carry away the byproducts of cold combustion faster.


Got a (cherry picked pseudoscience even) link to something that deomonstrates that behaviour ???


Do you have any from 1942 I can borrow?


What is the reference to 1942 ? It was before my time
 
Originally Posted By: steve20
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Just like you knew that thinner oils tend to flow better at start up and before operating temps and carry away the byproducts of cold combustion faster.


Got a (cherry picked pseudoscience even) link to something that deomonstrates that behaviour ???


Do you have any from 1942 I can borrow?


What is the reference to 1942 ? It was before my time


It was the time when Rosie the Riveter made my nights...
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: y_p_w


The 1998 Civic Si had a DOHC VTEC 1.6 with 160 HP. It wasn't that hard to access that power with a manual transmission. Heck - I remember the Celica GT-S had 180 HP out of a naturally aspirated 1.8.


Yes, but the Si was a special (performance) edition that Honda never sold in America and only did so under pressure at the dawn of the internet. The regular Civics were around 106HP then (without checking, don't feel like Googlemania tonight)..

The current turbo Civics are just the regular cars in varying HP displacements. The Si and Mugen will be much higher...

The 1998 Civic SI was available in a 2 door coupe. I remember the commercial that aired in the US. It was something about a guy saying something about maybe going home from work early. When his boss hears about it, he starts unleashing a bunch of Bond villain like stuff at him as he drives away in his Civic Si.

The same engine was available in the Civic del Sol (aka CRX) VTEC. I had a 1995 Integra GS-R with the 170 HP 1.8L DOHC 4. The Prelude Si around then had a 2.0L 190 HP engine. These were screamers though, but they were extremely easy to flog. It got loud, but the engine tended to be smooth all the way up to the 8000 RPM redline.

I guess the newer turbos might do better with automatic transmissions since you can at least get some good performance at less than redline. 15 years ago, someone wanting that kind of performance knew how to drive a stick.
 
Exactly. The main reason that I got the 2.4 Accord vs. the V6 Accord is for ease of access to the plugs and a more open engine compartment to contribute to cooler under the hood temperatures. It's hot down here!
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Didn't say all that.The Café requirements are greater than the mfgs can timely meet so we end up with Turbos in economy cars and increasingly thin oils to max out cafe testing results to the exclusion of long term durability. Ever try to remove a turbo so that you can change your spark plugs?


That's a silly blanket statement. If you mean the Civic, the turbo generates nearly 180HP, IIRC. Ten or 15 years ago, that's not economy that's performance in a small car. Honda isn't just going for fuel economy, they're competing in a tough segment against Mazda, which has run circles around them for two decades in terms of performance and driveability. The issue isn't the turbo scorching the "thin oils" in the Honda, the issue is fuel dilution! An entirely different issue from your tired old CAFE conspiracy stuff...
Lol. You made my point. The reason the Honda's have the fuel dilution problem is because the Legislated CAFE numbers, Mfg.s are required to meet,exceeded,in this case,Honda's lead time to engineer a simple non fuel diluting engine. The Café regulations are(were) too much..too fast for the MFGs. I prefer NA engines to Turbos. Enjoy your Mazda,I like Mazdas,but Honda outsells Mazda 3 or 4 to 1.
 
Originally Posted By: FZ1
[/quote]Lol. You made my point. The reason the Honda's have the fuel dilution problem is because the Legislated CAFE numbers,


No, it isn't the "reason". You don't really have a point because you have nothing other than idle speculative prejudices not backed up by actual evidence and masking your opinion as fact. In any case, [censored] would Honda need a turbo to make high MPG's? The had a Civic HX that got nearly 44mpg with a roughly 110-HP engine. They don't need to turbo anything! They've always marketed themselves as the top fuel economy OEM across the board, or at least the used too...

The turbo is for performance, not expressly fuel economy. If you mentioned the Chcvy 1.4L, then you'd have a "point"...

Quote:
Mfg.s are required to meet,exceeded,in this case,Honda's lead time to engineer a simple non fuel diluting engine. The Café regulations are(were) too much..too fast for the MFGs. I prefer NA engines to Turbos. Enjoy your Mazda,I like Mazdas,but Honda outsells Mazda 3 or 4 to 1.


I never said I had a Mazda, and who cares who outsells whom? Honda was dedicated to high MPG's well before any CAFE stuff, it's why they owned the U.S. auto industry in the 1970's during the Oil Crisis. They affixed a turbo to increase more for performance and not expressively for MPG because obviously they can do well without a turbo...

And fuel economy isn't all "CAFE driven". Remember 2008-2009? The Oil Crisis?
 
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Exactly. The main reason that I got the 2.4 Accord vs. the V6 Accord is for ease of access to the plugs and a more open engine compartment to contribute to cooler under the hood temperatures. It's hot down here!


And that CAFE driven fuel economy boost!
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I guess it is about time for another one of these threads. They do seem to come along at about the same frequency. ...
Yep, with all the usual illogical arguments.

Think "water-like" xW-20 is a recent plague forced by CAFE requirements? Consider GM's oil recommendations for 1962 full-size Chevrolets, in all production engines from the Stove Bolt I6 to the legendary high-compression 409, as follows:

For anticipated temperatures
< 0°F : 5W or 5W-20
> 0°F : 10W or 10W-30
>32°F: 20W or 10W-30
"For high speed driving when the temperature is above 90°F, SAE 30 or 10W-30 MAY be used."

That effectively said that at 85°F in 1962, single-weight SAE 20 was fine, and SAE 30 was too thick. Yet, some folks feel xW-20 is too thin at the same temperature in 2017, in engines designed for it. Very confusing!


Figure this out. Mustang GT with the Track Pack has an oil cooler and extra water cooling. Engine is EXACTLY the same as the standard GT. Recommends 20-50. The Standard GT 5-20.

The whole "Tighter Engine Tolerances" is bogus. If engines were any tighter they'd come seized from the factory.
 
Last edited:
The W rating is only applicable at cold startup. What climate do you plan to use the car in?
(hint - 20wX is considered thick in Australia, many cars in the outback use 10w40 just fine.)
 
I meant 5-50. sorry about the typo.



And just to point out. someone else mentioned fuel dilution. It happens on any Forced Induction application. FI cars tend to be very hard on oils and sheer rates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top