OK to use 0W40 to replace 5W20?
- Thread starter qfg
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
For what it's worth, I'm running straight Amsoil 30wt in the TL and have seen nothing but positive results.
About 7 years ago, the technical specs on the Amsoil straight 30 weight were the same as thier 10W-30. In other words, it was the same oil. I dont know if they changed. You may want to check it out, I'm to lazy to go to their website.
For what it's worth, I'm running straight Amsoil 30wt in the TL and have seen nothing but positive results.
About 7 years ago, the technical specs on the Amsoil straight 30 weight were the same as thier 10W-30. In other words, it was the same oil. I dont know if they changed. You may want to check it out, I'm to lazy to go to their website.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
For what it's worth, I'm running straight Amsoil 30wt in the TL and have seen nothing but positive results.
That's really a 10W30.
You beat me to it
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
For what it's worth, I'm running straight Amsoil 30wt in the TL and have seen nothing but positive results.
That's really a 10W30.
You beat me to it
Originally Posted By: Loobed
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
For what it's worth, I'm running straight Amsoil 30wt in the TL and have seen nothing but positive results.
About 7 years ago, the technical specs on the Amsoil straight 30 weight were the same as thier 10W-30. In other words, it was the same oil. I dont know if they changed. You may want to check it out, I'm to lazy to go to their website.
It's listed as a 10-30/30. I would assume since the website says it has no VIIs that it may be on the thin side for a straight 30?
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
For what it's worth, I'm running straight Amsoil 30wt in the TL and have seen nothing but positive results.
About 7 years ago, the technical specs on the Amsoil straight 30 weight were the same as thier 10W-30. In other words, it was the same oil. I dont know if they changed. You may want to check it out, I'm to lazy to go to their website.
It's listed as a 10-30/30. I would assume since the website says it has no VIIs that it may be on the thin side for a straight 30?
The VTEC solenoids life will not be shortened by a 40wt oil. 0w40 will work just fine. VTEC will not engage unless a few parameters are met. Mr Allen, you are certainly not serious about whether "Canada has VTEC" right?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Mr Allen, you are certainly not serious about whether "Canada has VTEC" right?
My point was that ..unless there's some warning sticker attached to Canadian VTEC engines that states "You'll shoot your eye out kid!!" ...then many of them are surely not warmed enough for the oil to be a 20 weight when the driver may employ VTEC. I doubt a Canadian waits any longer than an American in Texas using the same 5w-20 oil.
Mr Allen, you are certainly not serious about whether "Canada has VTEC" right?
My point was that ..unless there's some warning sticker attached to Canadian VTEC engines that states "You'll shoot your eye out kid!!" ...then many of them are surely not warmed enough for the oil to be a 20 weight when the driver may employ VTEC. I doubt a Canadian waits any longer than an American in Texas using the same 5w-20 oil.
No such thing as too heavy for VTEC????Do not know where you guy's get this garbage from???? It will not hurt anyting but I doubt it will do much for you either....If you just want to give it a try then go for it make sure you do a UOA though andmaybe one witht he 5W20 latter. This way people can see that their is little to no difference....So again give it a try no harm is going to be done either way....
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Why does everyone assume Honda or newer cars in general have closer tolerances. From what I've seen, the new stuff is not much different than my old Buick or an old SBC.
Because the clearance in many of the new Honda,Toyota,GM(ecotec) engines are much tighter than those older engines you mentioned.
I have built tons of SBC engines that ran 4-5 thousanths piston/wall clearances. Most new import/domestic engines are running as little as 1-1.5 piston/wall clearances due to high silicone alloy pistons and skirt coatings. Ditto for rod/mains. The newer engines can maintain super-tight(1-1.5 thousanths) and rev to the moon on 0W20 oils. Many older engines were fine and dandy with as much as 3-4 thousanths main bearing clearances but not so today. Even the new oil-hammer engines are running closer and closer clearances to cut down on emissions and noise.
There's no such thing as the "good old days" when it comes to engines. We see many 4 bangers putting out more HP than the old V-8s and are running 300,000 miles with basic oil changes. Internal engine repairs are just about non-existant in the first 150,000 of a well-cared for new engine.
Why does everyone assume Honda or newer cars in general have closer tolerances. From what I've seen, the new stuff is not much different than my old Buick or an old SBC.
Because the clearance in many of the new Honda,Toyota,GM(ecotec) engines are much tighter than those older engines you mentioned.
I have built tons of SBC engines that ran 4-5 thousanths piston/wall clearances. Most new import/domestic engines are running as little as 1-1.5 piston/wall clearances due to high silicone alloy pistons and skirt coatings. Ditto for rod/mains. The newer engines can maintain super-tight(1-1.5 thousanths) and rev to the moon on 0W20 oils. Many older engines were fine and dandy with as much as 3-4 thousanths main bearing clearances but not so today. Even the new oil-hammer engines are running closer and closer clearances to cut down on emissions and noise.
There's no such thing as the "good old days" when it comes to engines. We see many 4 bangers putting out more HP than the old V-8s and are running 300,000 miles with basic oil changes. Internal engine repairs are just about non-existant in the first 150,000 of a well-cared for new engine.
Originally Posted By: Mokanic
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Why does everyone assume Honda or newer cars in general have closer tolerances. From what I've seen, the new stuff is not much different than my old Buick or an old SBC.
Because the clearance in many of the new Honda,Toyota,GM(ecotec) engines are much tighter than those older engines you mentioned.
I have built tons of SBC engines that ran 4-5 thousanths piston/wall clearances. Most new import/domestic engines are running as little as 1-1.5 piston/wall clearances due to high silicone alloy pistons and skirt coatings. Ditto for rod/mains. The newer engines can maintain super-tight(1-1.5 thousanths) and rev to the moon on 0W20 oils. Many older engines were fine and dandy with as much as 3-4 thousanths main bearing clearances but not so today. Even the new oil-hammer engines are running closer and closer clearances to cut down on emissions and noise.
There's no such thing as the "good old days" when it comes to engines. We see many 4 bangers putting out more HP than the old V-8s and are running 300,000 miles with basic oil changes. Internal engine repairs are just about non-existant in the first 150,000 of a well-cared for new engine.
I agree with some of that. In the Buick, which was largely unchanged from 78-87, for a performance build and what I followed was, the mains are at .002, rods at .0015, forged JEs at .004 per JE, but the guys using hypers are running half that clearance. Stock clearances were tighter at about what you quoted for the new stuff. That's the only motor I've personally built (4 times). But looking over some old repair manuals I don't see much difference between old SBCs and the new stuff. I can see some of the big block and bigger bore small blocks having to run a slightly larger piston to cylinder clearance or more rod/main clearance with the larger journals but that has nothing to do with how new they are. I would bet most anything running 4-5 thousanths are blown/nitrous motors, right?
I hope this makes sense, I'm falling asleep lol.
Originally Posted By: BuickGN
Why does everyone assume Honda or newer cars in general have closer tolerances. From what I've seen, the new stuff is not much different than my old Buick or an old SBC.
Because the clearance in many of the new Honda,Toyota,GM(ecotec) engines are much tighter than those older engines you mentioned.
I have built tons of SBC engines that ran 4-5 thousanths piston/wall clearances. Most new import/domestic engines are running as little as 1-1.5 piston/wall clearances due to high silicone alloy pistons and skirt coatings. Ditto for rod/mains. The newer engines can maintain super-tight(1-1.5 thousanths) and rev to the moon on 0W20 oils. Many older engines were fine and dandy with as much as 3-4 thousanths main bearing clearances but not so today. Even the new oil-hammer engines are running closer and closer clearances to cut down on emissions and noise.
There's no such thing as the "good old days" when it comes to engines. We see many 4 bangers putting out more HP than the old V-8s and are running 300,000 miles with basic oil changes. Internal engine repairs are just about non-existant in the first 150,000 of a well-cared for new engine.
I agree with some of that. In the Buick, which was largely unchanged from 78-87, for a performance build and what I followed was, the mains are at .002, rods at .0015, forged JEs at .004 per JE, but the guys using hypers are running half that clearance. Stock clearances were tighter at about what you quoted for the new stuff. That's the only motor I've personally built (4 times). But looking over some old repair manuals I don't see much difference between old SBCs and the new stuff. I can see some of the big block and bigger bore small blocks having to run a slightly larger piston to cylinder clearance or more rod/main clearance with the larger journals but that has nothing to do with how new they are. I would bet most anything running 4-5 thousanths are blown/nitrous motors, right?
I hope this makes sense, I'm falling asleep lol.
Just for fun, here are some specs for the old VW engines, circa 1973:
Cylinder/piston clearance: 0.0016-0.0024"
Rod bearing/journal radial play: 0.0008-0.0028"
Crank bearing/crank radial play: 0.0008-0.004" (Max and min over all four bearings)
Cam bearing/journal radial play: 0.0008-0.002"
They liked their engines tight, eons ago.
- Scott
Cylinder/piston clearance: 0.0016-0.0024"
Rod bearing/journal radial play: 0.0008-0.0028"
Crank bearing/crank radial play: 0.0008-0.004" (Max and min over all four bearings)
Cam bearing/journal radial play: 0.0008-0.002"
They liked their engines tight, eons ago.
- Scott
- Status
Similar threads
