I am tired of everybody saying 20 wt oils exist only for gas mileage

Status
Not open for further replies.
aheass,too each his own you use what you believe is right..i donnot believe that a 20 wt oil is in our cars best interest and i am not taking a chance with such lite wt oils that are dictated to us from our gov. 20 wt. are not used in europe so i will stick with a high 10w30...for my fords.
thanks for your views
 
quote:

Originally posted by G-Man II:
I do disagree with you about the MPG angle and OEM 5w20 factory fill. I think CAFE was the motivating factor behind OEMs doing initial research to answer this question: Will a 5w20 yield a statistically measurable increase in fuel economy over the already low HTHS 5w30 being spec'd? Ford of course was the front runner here and once they determined that the answer was YES they then laid down a set of performance requirements for the oil that would virtually guarantee that any 5w20 meeting their specs would protect not just as well as 5w30, but BETTER under equal conditions. In other words, Ford recognized that making 5w20 versions of existing 5w30 oils would never work from the standpoint of wear and engine durability even if it gave a boost to their CAFE numbers. In the end, Ford's tough specs for 5w20 have given us oils in this grade from every maker that are superior in the way they are made. Though I think what we are seeing with the new SM oils is that ALL grades are now having to be made in the same ways that Ford spec 5w20s have been made all along, i.e., superior base oils and better cutting edge additive technology.

I agree wholeheartedly.
 
I think GManII probably has it exactly right. The move to 5W-20 certainly was initiated by a desire to improve fuel economy, if only by a relatively small amount. Once Ford took the decision to go that way, they then laid down a challenging set of wear criteria for the oils which would they would certify. As the SM generation was developed, those Ford requirements essentially got rolled into the new North American industry wide specification.

This, by the way, is where the Euro companies have it wrong. They seem more than happy to generate company-by-company test procedures and specifications and then do a poor job of rolling those specification up into broad industry standards. The ACEA specs seem to be a Euro attempt to go in the direction of industry standards, yet many of the Euro makers seem quite set on continuing to have their own makers' tests.

Perhaps in Europe more people simply go to their dealer for service and pay whatever high price is asked for it.

One interesting question is why GM has stayed away from the 5W-20 move. DaimlerChrysler seems to be going 5W-20 with their new designs. Ford is there almost across the board. Honda is 5W-20 in most of their vehicles, but not all. Nissan, Toyota and the rest seem to be completely staying away.

John
 
Well, Dr. Haas, I don't disagree with you. My personal research shows me that if you're spec'd for a 30 weight ..probably 90% of the time you're actually using a 40 weight or higher. Those who use 40 weights are probably using a 60 weight depending on conditions and trip duration.

..but ..aside from the original M1 5w-20 ..most of the current offerings are rather recent. The "flood" of great 5w-20 oils is now upon us.

They aren't for everyone ..but most can be served well by using the philosophy "lighter is better (when possible)".
 
....and for those of us who don't drive like grannies, live in hot climates, off-road, AutoX and drag... 20wt's are clearly superior....
rolleyes.gif
rolleyes.gif


I'll save the 20wts for my mom's car, provided it doesnt burn out before an OCI is due
 
O.K. doc I won't say 20 wt oils exist for gas mileage. But if I were to use a 20 wt it would be for gas mileage only.
 
Hmmmm..I seem to recall this thread before..with the same results. This oil serves two purposes..increases CAFE and allows engines to wear out a bit early..but agter warranty is over. Note that there is no proof for this but the EPA backed off (under industry pressure) requiring manufactures to specify 150K (I believe that's the number) engine durability. Hard for me to believe one can think otherwise..but its a free country
cheers.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Al:
Hmmmm..I seem to recall this thread before..with the same results. This oil serves two purposes..increases CAFE and allows engines to wear out a bit early..but agter warranty is over. Note that there is no proof for this but the EPA backed off (under industry pressure) requiring manufactures to specify 150K (I believe that's the number) engine durability. Hard for me to believe one can think otherwise..but its a free country
cheers.gif


makes perfect sense. a 20wt will run ya fine for the first 100k of service, but after that, tolerances increase, wear rates will grow exponentially, provided 20wt's were used all of an engine's life. That thin basestock cant be good for volatility protection in the long run either...
dunno.gif
but hey!
 
quote:

Originally posted by jthorner:
One interesting question is why GM has stayed away from the 5W-20 move. DaimlerChrysler seems to be going 5W-20 with their new designs. Ford is there almost across the board. Honda is 5W-20 in most of their vehicles, but not all. Nissan, Toyota and the rest seem to be completely staying away.

John


It would be very interesting to see responses from all the manufacturers who AREN'T spec'ing 5W20 for their NA market vehicles stating their reasons as to why not.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

Originally posted by moribundman:
I hope we aren't all going to end up in the same retirement home some day.
wink.gif


buster: "Look at moribundman. He seems slow. I bet he's using that ultra-heavy 50 weight in his wheelchair." (I presume we will have gas-powered wheelchairs!)


moribundman: " I heard that, buster! Better check your oil. I think your rod bearings are knocking."


I'm hoping for a nuclear powered personal hovercraft with sealed lifetime bearings.
grin.gif


What's a good OCI for that gas-powered wheelchair? Mostly short trips between the bed and the bathroom, with occasional long trips to the dining room. Never gets below 20 degrees F.
cheers.gif
 
Regardless of what people like or don't like, in their TSB Ford says that 5W20 was being recommended for fuel economy. Even as a synthetic blend the OEM 5W20 does not offer the same protection as 5W30 dino since Ford excluded a number of all vehicles from using 5W20. Outside of the US Honda states that 5W20 provides good fuel mileage but it is not recommended for sustained high speed driving. Ford, Honda and others seem to use heavier oils in the same vehicles outside of the US.

Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge something that even the car makers have said ?
 
quote:

Originally posted by the_oil_dealer:
That thin basestock cant be good for volatility protection in the long run either...
dunno.gif
but hey!


lol.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
Ford excluded a number of all vehicles from using 5W20.

Wrong. They excluded TWO: The Lincoln LS V8 (basically a detuned Jag engine) and the Explorer with the 4.0 V6 (again, an engine designed in Europe). Everything else got 5w20 retroactively recommended all the way back to the early 90s.
 
I think we are all right and wrong.

A well formulated 20wt will beat out a **** poor 30wt and vice versa. Viscosity is just one spec.
 
"I wonder why the Europeans are not using thinner oils if they do in fact provide better gas mileage. They are paying over $8 a gallon in places. If it gave that much better gas milage then why aren't they all using it."

Because the more intelligent motor vehicle populus in Europe selects a vehicle's fuel consumption based on engine size in liters vs. using a thinner oil.

Secondly, engine oil is just as expensive as fuel. Using thinner oils that are 1) consumed more 2) Require shorter OCI's 3) Reduce engine life are NOT a plus when it comes to saving money.

[ April 18, 2005, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Dr. T ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by the_oil_dealer:

quote:

Originally posted by Al:
This oil serves two purposes..increases CAFE and allows engines to wear out a bit early..but agter warranty is over. Note that there is no proof for this but the EPA backed off (under industry pressure) requiring manufactures to specify 150K (I believe that's the number) engine durability.

a 20wt will run ya fine for the first 100k of service, but after that, tolerances increase, wear rates will grow exponentially, provided 20wt's were used all of an engine's life. That thin basestock cant be good for volatility protection in the long run either...
dunno.gif
but hey!


One of the reasons for SM oils is to be certain that emissions were controlled for 120k miles (I was told). Now if the 20 wt oils could not hold the engine together then it would seem that emissions would fail and so would the car's emission warrantee. By law the emissions have to be controlled for this time period.

Also, I always wondered why they never spec oils for different levels of wear. It would make sense to spec the 20 wt oil for the first 60k miles then 30 and finally 40 wt oil after xxx miles. The same goes for engines that spec a 40 wt oil from the start. Wouldn't a 50 and then a 60 wt oil be needed after a bunch of miles.
My nurse has used Pennzoil 5W-30 in her Camry for well over 200k miles. Maybe, if the engine was made right from the start it will last forever regardless of what oil you use, assuming you take good care of it.
In the meantime I run cooler, get a tad better gas mileage and get a lot more power with my thinner oils.

aehaas
 
quote:

Originally posted by AEHaas:
Somehow I do not think that 20 wt oils exist solely for better fuel economy. First of all you may get 1/2 or 1 more MPG. If you want 1 or 2 MPG better then make the engine a few cc smaller. If every engine was just a little smaller then you get better gas mileage for the whole car line-up.

Several automotive manufacturers make only small cars. Chevy makes a bunch of Big, Thirst cars and trucks and a few small cars. They cannot compete with these “small car Only” companies. Mercedes has no small US cars and many are real gas guzzlers. Ferrari, Aston Martin, Rolls, Bentley, Lamborghini and many others make Only REALLY THIRSTY cars. They do not HAVE TO MEET EPA, CAFE standards for MPG. The answer is NO. The average “fleet” MPG is whatever it is.

Yes I paid a single gas guzzler tax when I bought my cars but no US car buyer looks at that or they would never buy all these cars the American car buyers keep buying. Few American car buyers buy hybrid cars. Just look at the stats. We by SUV’s.

There used to be a lot of tiny imported trucks. Now look at them. They are all HUGE trucks from the same companies. This is what we buy.

I do not think that Ford recommends a 20 wt oil in my Expedition to be able to meet some fleet-wide CAFE rule by getting a half more MPG. My “old” Mercedes SEL 600 with a 6.0 liter V12 and 412 BHP has run 80,000 miles on mostly Pennzoil 20 wt oil with 3-4,000 mile OCI’s and is running strong with no oil consumption at all. These “thin” oils can work and in my thinking provide better overall protection for us “short trip” Americans who are driving mostly in the start-up period.

I do not think that 20 wt oil was developed just to increase the average MPG of automotive manufacturer’s fleets to be able the meet MPG requirements. Cars are getting bigger. Engines are bigger and more powerful. This is what the average American is buying, not gas mileage.

aehaas


ae...

I greatly respect the seriousness and sincerity with which you approach the subject of automotive engine lubrication and, if your premise that 1/2 to 1 mpg is all you get is correct, it is indeed hard to refute your assertion that it doesn't make sense to promote use of 20wts based on that attribute alone. I suppose unless we could get into the boardrooms and labs of the majors we will never know the answer for sure, but I will tell you that, on this one, I am convinced...20wts represent another episode in the devolution of engine protection in the name of CAFE or other standards not related to improved protection. I am surprised that Honda is a participant. It does not surprise me that Ford is. (I have owned two Fords and, with the exception of some specialty cars their engineering does not impress me.)
 
From the TSB below, certainly more than 2 engines were excluded, especially considering that the list is not exhaustive. SHO owners noticed that they were not on the 'use' list.

It doesn't matter where an engine was designed, all that matters is whether the OEM semi-synthetic 5W20 provides as much protection as dino 5W30; since not all vehicles were approved for 5W20 it is obvious that 5w20 does not provide as much protection as 5w30.


Table 2. Recommended 2001 Ford engines/vehicles for SAE 5W-30 oil (in order of increasing displacement)
2.5-L Ranger
3.3-L Villager
3.9-L Lincoln LS
4.0-L Ranger, Explorer/Mountaineer, Explorer Sport, Explorer Sport Trac
5.0-L Explorer/Mountaineer
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
From the TSB below, certainly more than 2 engines were excluded, especially considering that the list is not exhaustive.Table 2. Recommended 2001 Ford engines/vehicles for SAE 5W-30 oil (in order of increasing displacement)
2.5-L Ranger
3.3-L Villager
3.9-L Lincoln LS
4.0-L Ranger, Explorer/Mountaineer, Explorer Sport, Explorer Sport Trac
5.0-L Explorer/Mountaineer


Yeah, I forgot about the 4 cyl in the Ranger and the Nissan engine in the Villager. However, in the most recent "list" the 5.0 is now approved for 5w20.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top