should i raise up a grade in this climates summers

[WANG]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: WANG
I don't follow the CAFE conspiracy theory that our engines are being short changed on lube oil protection for the sake of CAFE. ... This is a significant service life.


The OP should be aware some manufactures themselves advise that the CAFE thin oils "provide ADEQUATE protection". Yeah, I guess "ADEQUATE protection" is good enough for "significant" service life.

Personally, I want "maximum" protection, or at least as close to it I can get, practically speaking. In TX, there is little advantage to real thin oils. 10-30 and/or 5-30 works great here.



If other oil grades were better for protection, I really cannot fathom why the manufacturers wouldn't include them as permissible in the owner's manuals. If the alternative viscosities were footnoted with even some weak language such as "alternate, not preferred" or "may negatively impact EPA fuel economy estimates", that would negate the CAFE argument or any scandal that would result if someone filled with XwXX and lost a fractional mpg on Fuelly.

Let's think about this: If a BITOGer came along saying, "My car calls for 15w40, but I'm looking to save gas by using 5w30", how many people would say that measurable fuel economy would be the result of such a change? Or, "I'm trying to get maximum acceleration from my Corolla, will Alisyn Prodrive 21 Type 1 let me leave those dang Nissan Sentras in the dust?", how many people would say, "Oh yeah, and your fuel economy will skyrocket!" Seriously.

If very few (REASONABLE) people would expect such a minor change to have a measurable impact on performance or fuel economy, why would they expect OEMs to do the same?

I'm the first to say, pounds are made of ounces, and one horsepower will always be the result of 10 things that were worth a 1/10th of a horsepower each, so I can see how the OEMs would do everything they can to post the greatest fuel economy and performance numbers. The thing that I have a hard time believing is that they would make a maintenance requirement that would compromise the service life of the machine.

TL;DR

You could probably run T6 in every internal combustion engine sold in North America and it would be fine. It probably wouldn't hurt to use whatever was recommended in the owner's manual, either.

 

[xshoex]

in our '11 kia sorento 3.5 i just put 5w-20 in last week, south georgia, high was 105 today, car is fine. i usually run 10-30 but imo nothing wrong with 20 weight in summer.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: WANG
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: WANG
I don't follow the CAFE conspiracy theory that our engines are being short changed on lube oil protection for the sake of CAFE. ... This is a significant service life.


The OP should be aware some manufactures themselves advise that the CAFE thin oils "provide ADEQUATE protection". Yeah, I guess "ADEQUATE protection" is good enough for "significant" service life.

Personally, I want "maximum" protection, or at least as close to it I can get, practically speaking. In TX, there is little advantage to real thin oils. 10-30 and/or 5-30 works great here.



If other oil grades were better for protection, I really cannot fathom why the manufacturers wouldn't include them as permissible in the owner's manuals. If the alternative viscosities were footnoted with even some weak language such as "alternate, not preferred" or "may negatively impact EPA fuel economy estimates", that would negate the CAFE argument or any scandal that would result if someone filled with XwXX and lost a fractional mpg on Fuelly.

Let's think about this: If a BITOGer came along saying, "My car calls for 15w40, but I'm looking to save gas by using 5w30", how many people would say that measurable fuel economy would be the result of such a change? Or, "I'm trying to get maximum acceleration from my Corolla, will Alisyn Prodrive 21 Type 1 let me leave those dang Nissan Sentras in the dust?", how many people would say, "Oh yeah, and your fuel economy will skyrocket!" Seriously.

If very few (REASONABLE) people would expect such a minor change to have a measurable impact on performance or fuel economy, why would they expect OEMs to do the same?

I'm the first to say, pounds are made of ounces, and one horsepower will always be the result of 10 things that were worth a 1/10th of a horsepower each, so I can see how the OEMs would do everything they can to post the greatest fuel economy and performance numbers. The thing that I have a hard time believing is that they would make a maintenance requirement that would compromise the service life of the machine.

TL;DR

You could probably run T6 in every internal combustion engine sold in North America and it would be fine. It probably wouldn't hurt to use whatever was recommended in the owner's manual, either.


Some owner's manuals do recommend thicker oils for racing,extended high speeds,etc. The current Corvette recommends Mobil 1 15W50 if you're racing or tracking. Plus mfg's get $$ for following CAFE regulations.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: WANG

If other oil grades were better for protection, I really cannot fathom why the manufacturers wouldn't include them as permissible in the owner's manuals.


They used to, and still do in other countries. My understanding of the CAFE regulations is that the OEM can only recommend the grade (or grades) that are suitable for the CAFE qualification. So GM can say to use 5w-30 or 0w-30 in the winter and that's fine. But they can't tell you to use 15w-40 or 0w-40.

Though, IIRC, there was something about using 15w-50 in one of the GM manuals when talking about "track use" at one point

This is of course also where I'll parade out the "track pack" Mustang GT example where the same engine required 5w-20 or 5w-50 depending on whether you opted for the "Track Pack" package (which included revised ECM tuning and an oil cooler amongst other things) or not

 

[Pontual]

Wang, even though we don't know the op's car type, year and model, he wants more protection and elected 5w30 instead of 5w20, that means you didn't convinced him, in spite your efforts, Mr. "adequate protection" is enough. What make you believe that an engine from the 1996-2004 era (the average car year [most cars] on the roads) is something to not be considered?

 

[WANG]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: WANG

If other oil grades were better for protection, I really cannot fathom why the manufacturers wouldn't include them as permissible in the owner's manuals.


They used to, and still do in other countries. My understanding of the CAFE regulations is that the OEM can only recommend the grade (or grades) that are suitable for the CAFE qualification. So GM can say to use 5w-30 or 0w-30 in the winter and that's fine. But they can't tell you to use 15w-40 or 0w-40.

Though, IIRC, there was something about using 15w-50 in one of the GM manuals when talking about "track use" at one point

This is of course also where I'll parade out the "track pack" Mustang GT example where the same engine required 5w-20 or 5w-50 depending on whether you opted for the "Track Pack" package (which included revised ECM tuning and an oil cooler amongst other things) or not

That's exactly what I'm getting at. If there is a better answer for viscosity for particular environments or duty cycles, it's usually called out in the owner's manual. Does the "Track Pack" Mustang have a different EPA fuel economy estimate from yhe more pedestrian Mustang with the same engine/trans? I don't know. My suspicion is not.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: WANG
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: WANG

If other oil grades were better for protection, I really cannot fathom why the manufacturers wouldn't include them as permissible in the owner's manuals.


They used to, and still do in other countries. My understanding of the CAFE regulations is that the OEM can only recommend the grade (or grades) that are suitable for the CAFE qualification. So GM can say to use 5w-30 or 0w-30 in the winter and that's fine. But they can't tell you to use 15w-40 or 0w-40.

Though, IIRC, there was something about using 15w-50 in one of the GM manuals when talking about "track use" at one point

This is of course also where I'll parade out the "track pack" Mustang GT example where the same engine required 5w-20 or 5w-50 depending on whether you opted for the "Track Pack" package (which included revised ECM tuning and an oil cooler amongst other things) or not

That's exactly what I'm getting at. If there is a better answer for viscosity for particular environments or duty cycles, it's usually called out in the owner's manual. Does the "Track Pack" Mustang have a different EPA fuel economy estimate from yhe more pedestrian Mustang with the same engine/trans? I don't know. My suspicion is not.


Yes, I believe the Track Pack does have a different EPA rating. Similar to the BOSS 302, which also spec'd 5w-50, as does the GT500 and so did the Ford GT.

And it used to be called out in the owners manuals but they have been dumbed down significantly unless you are outside of North America unfortunately

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I would not run a 20 weight in Texas summers. How's that for a nice simple reply?

Well my simple answer is - I've run 5W-20 in my Grand Marquis and made numerous trips from Southern Ca. to Phoenix, Az even in summer time when the temperature was 115, and I was doing 75-80 MPH for several hours.

At 140K miles, the Mercury is still running very well and is one of our daily drivers. If I were a betting man, I'd put big money on this engine making it to at least 250K miles or more!

 

[WANG]

We do know the OP's cars. None of them are 15 year old Subarus. Citing a Subaru manual is nearly as relevent as me citing a Perkins industrial engine manual. Different equipment, different requirements.
I would prefer to, in the future, be known as "MR. IAW Manufacturer Recommendations" rather than, "MR. Adequate Protection".

 

[WANG]

The GT500 has a supercharged engine with significantly greater output than the Track Pack or the Boss 302 , it makes sense that the EPA estimate would be different.

The Ford GT, again, is a different model altogether. It makes sense that it would have different lube oil recommendations and EPA fuel economy estimates.

The Track Pack and Boss 302 are presumably geared toward track days. It makes sense for the owner's manual to specify oil suitable for that application.

All I am trying to convey is, if there is a viscosity requirement for a long and happy service life it is probably spelled out in the owner's manual.

The citations that people have provided of "Track Pack" and "sustained high speed operation" and etc., are examples of what I'm saying. If there is a better recommendation, it's probably in the manual.

In the case of OP's cars, there was no such recommendation germane to his operating environment, that he made known to BITOG.

 

[hatt]

What if I drive a GT like a Track Pack? 5w-20 still the absolute best choice?

 

[ronp]

Originally Posted By: oldmaninsc
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I would not run a 20 weight in Texas summers. How's that for a nice simple reply?

Well my simple answer is - I've run 5W-20 in my Grand Marquis and made numerous trips from Southern Ca. to Phoenix, Az even in summer time when the temperature was 115, and I was doing 75-80 MPH for several hours.

At 140K miles, the Mercury is still running very well and is one of our daily drivers. If I were a betting man, I'd put big money on this engine making it to at least 250K miles or more!


It no stretch of the imagination at all to anticipate 250k on your grand marquis especially if its the v8.80k miles per hour with that motor is noting the same as 80mph in my little 1.5 or 2.3 lol. Marquis is a terrific machine for longevity and reliability. As I'm sure you know many many of them or their cousins are in police fleets.
My concern that I push my small engines hard. particularly the Mazda has to work hard to meet my needs. The 1.5 stays right above 3500 rps on highway at 80mph and time is money so slower is $$$$

 

[hatt]

If you're worried about it run a 30. Absolutely impossible for there to be negative consequences, other than a very slight mpg hit, from doing so in TX.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I would not run a 20 weight in Texas summers. How's that for a nice simple reply?

You still didn't answer my question at the end of this thread, Merk.

 

[TFB1]

Originally Posted By: hatt
If you're worried about it run a 30. Absolutely impossible for there to be negative consequences, other than a very slight mpg hit, from doing so in TX.
Agreed...

This is a subject that has been agonized on probably every automotive related board there is, Google 5W-20 & 5W-30 and just see what comes up... I recently stumbled onto a post from '06 here on BITOG, yep subject was 5W-20 vs 5W-30...

For most of us it likely won't make any difference and the engine will be fine on 5W-20, BUT if you feel better with a bit of bonus protection(and that's exactly what we're discussing), a two, three or four cSt heavier oil isn't going to cause a problem... Might just save your engine in the event of cooling system failure, chances are 5W-20 could be over taxed... Also for engines that run over 2500 RPM on the highway I'd most assuredly have it in my crankcase... I run 5W-30 in my both mod motor Grand Marquis and they rarely see 1800 RPM on the highway...

 

[ronp]

Ok I'm convinced there will be no harm in stepping up to 30 wght
thanks a lot fellows

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: WANG
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: WANG
I don't follow the CAFE conspiracy theory that our engines are being short changed on lube oil protection for the sake of CAFE. ... This is a significant service life.


The OP should be aware some manufactures themselves advise that the CAFE thin oils "provide ADEQUATE protection". Yeah, I guess "ADEQUATE protection" is good enough for "significant" service life.

Personally, I want "maximum" protection, or at least as close to it I can get, practically speaking. In TX, there is little advantage to real thin oils. 10-30 and/or 5-30 works great here.



If other oil grades were better for protection, I really cannot fathom why the manufacturers wouldn't include them as permissible in the owner's manuals. If the alternative viscosities were footnoted with even some weak language such as "alternate, not preferred" or "may negatively impact EPA fuel economy estimates", that would negate the CAFE argument or any scandal that would result if someone filled with XwXX and lost a fractional mpg on Fuelly.


CAFE anti backsliding rules require that the manufacturer makes every effort to have the user keep using the grade that the vehicle was certified with.

Which is why they stamp the oil cap (every other place just says oil), single grades in the manual etc. etc.

If they give you options other than vague "may require a higher viscosity", they are not complying.

 

[robo339]

Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I'd consider looking for a 5w-30 that meets acea a3 for a bit stouter viscosity in the same grade. That's about it, if I did anything...
Mobil I 5w-30 is probably the best synthetic oil sold in the USA and availability is as close as the closets Walmart.


Highly doubt that claim "the best" there is alot of other syn oils I'd rather use

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
I would not run a 20 weight in Texas summers. How's that for a nice simple reply?

Heck,I wouldn't even run a 20 weight in Texas winters!.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: WANG

The Track Pack and Boss 302 are presumably geared toward track days. It makes sense for the owner's manual to specify oil suitable for that application.


But they ONLY specify 5w-50. They do not recommend 5w-20 (like what is spec'd for the regular GT) when driven "normally".

Originally Posted By: WANG
All I am trying to convey is, if there is a viscosity requirement for a long and happy service life it is probably spelled out in the owner's manual.


Unless it can't be.

Originally Posted By: WANG
The citations that people have provided of "Track Pack" and "sustained high speed operation" and etc., are examples of what I'm saying. If there is a better recommendation, it's probably in the manual.

In the case of OP's cars, there was no such recommendation germane to his operating environment, that he made known to BITOG.


But that's exactly the point. The Mustang GT, which CAN and certainly HAS seen track duty, spec's 5w-20 and gives no options for anything above and beyond that. In fact Ford has thermal castration mechanisms in place to ensure it doesn't lunch itself if oil temps get high enough due to the spec'ing of a single grade for that car regardless of ambient or operating conditions.

However, you buy the same car but with the "Track Pack" options pack and all of a sudden you have an oil cooler and a 5w-50 requirement and don't run into the thermal castration mechanism.