Good point, I didn't think of that. My gas mileage has gone up considerably since going to 0w-20 from GC. This is why I started thinking about this, on top of the high gas prices on the news. If automakers can squeeze something like just 3mpg per vehicle more out of their cars, that saves a tremendous amount of gasoline. I forget the exact figures.
Future is THIN
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Well, I think you'll start to see a lot more turbo four cylinders and TDI diesels hit the streets in the next few years. An SAE 0w-30 that meets the ACEA, "A5/B5" or new, "C2-04/C3-04" specs is about the thinnest lube that will live in those for 10,000+ miles.
I do think that N/A engines are moving to 0w-20 and 5w-20, with the former being a PAO based synthetic. The light duty, diesel trucks will move from 15w-40 to 10w-30 conventional HDEO's and 5w-30 synthetics will become recommended for all temps.
Doug is completely correct about the low, vis, synthetic drivetrain fluids. For example, Audi now uses synthetics throughout their vehicles, including the power steering fluid and grease in the CV joints and wheel bearings.
TS
I do think that N/A engines are moving to 0w-20 and 5w-20, with the former being a PAO based synthetic. The light duty, diesel trucks will move from 15w-40 to 10w-30 conventional HDEO's and 5w-30 synthetics will become recommended for all temps.
Doug is completely correct about the low, vis, synthetic drivetrain fluids. For example, Audi now uses synthetics throughout their vehicles, including the power steering fluid and grease in the CV joints and wheel bearings.
TS
Doug,
I found Note 4 interesting, any further information?
NOTE 4 - Contrary to common perception, changing oil more often than recommended has been shown to increase engine wear. An ongoing University of Michigan study has shown that the greatest wear occurs in the first 3000km of an oil’s life in any engine!
I found Note 4 interesting, any further information?
NOTE 4 - Contrary to common perception, changing oil more often than recommended has been shown to increase engine wear. An ongoing University of Michigan study has shown that the greatest wear occurs in the first 3000km of an oil’s life in any engine!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I don't agree ..at least totally. Europe doesn't have a mass motoring fleet. They conserve by design and costs. You don't see Hummers or big SUV's there. Their costs are inflated due to taxation. That is, there are plenty of people in Europe that don't drive. There are few in the USA that don't drive. How much can you save in Europe by adding 1.5 mpg to their entire motoring fleet? How much can you save by getting the entire US fleet to get 1.5 mpg more??
I just came back from EU. The majority of the cars were pocket sized 3-5 door hatchbacks made by French, Japanese companies and Hyundai.
I was cynical of them until we rented one. They were quite spacious and easy to drive. 1.5 liter Mazda Demio with automatic handled much better that the 1.5 liter Corolla with MT and spent less gas (US$1.10 per liter). And it was easier to navigate through the narrow streets.
But I don't think these kind of cars will make it in the US. You can't really drive a car that can be loaded in the back seat of a Subarban. They may not be any less safe to be in on the road than the popular Corollas or Civics but if you can't go faster than 70 mph, you are not going to buy that car.
You rented a Mazda. If you rented a small Opel or
Renault, you'd be happy the day you got to return
the little buzz-bomb.
Once while there I was able to rent a Ford Focus
with a turbo-diesel. Wow! That thing was a great
car. It was a great performer, and I drove it all
week for 4 euros worth of fuel. I don't remember
all the details, but I do remember this being by
far the best, most efficient little car I'd ever
seen.
Renault, you'd be happy the day you got to return
the little buzz-bomb.
Once while there I was able to rent a Ford Focus
with a turbo-diesel. Wow! That thing was a great
car. It was a great performer, and I drove it all
week for 4 euros worth of fuel. I don't remember
all the details, but I do remember this being by
far the best, most efficient little car I'd ever
seen.
Thin oils don't impress me, they're just a bandaid for a growing problem. You can't get away from the simple fact that the biggest factor in fuel economy is weight. No matter how slick the oil, how trick the engine, even if you could get the rolling resistance and drag to zero, if you have to move a 3 ton SUV you'll be hard pressed to beat 20 mpg.
Thin oils are only one small part of the equation. Your right Raven, weight is another one. The list goes on and on but low viscosity oils are going to be around for awhile unless engines start to wear prematurly. So who wants to put M1 0w-20 in a LS1 and test it? I'll ship it to you. A little test...
Until you put a smaller turbo diesel in it to replace whatever gas engine is in there now. Hopefully the Liberty diesels being offered by Jeep will keep moving so the automakers get the hint that some of want this option.
My "ideal" truck would be a 1/2 ton with a six cylinder turbodiesel that delivers 24+ mpg freeway, hp like a small V8 and torque like a big V8. Ford almost did this in the F150's a few years back but backed out in a "cost savings" measure.
Those mid to high 20s for milage in the Vette are 360+hp cars, base Vette is now up to like 400hp and over 3000lbs. I think people dismiss aero too much yes weight plays a part particularly in stop and go but no so much on the highway. aero plays a big part there. I have 2 10 year old V8 CARS one signifigantly modified and lighter(one 4200lbs one 4700lbs without me) than the other, neither has ever gotten below 17-8mpg even when there were mechanical issues or towing involved. Highway with the AC is more like 23mpg and I have a heavy foot. Cars push less air than trucks and SUVs simple enough. In the modified car I swapped rearend ratios from 2.93 to 3.42 saw basically no change in my normal daily commute milage because I got slightly better milage in town and slightly worse on the highway, my driving is mixed so they washed against eachother.
Find yourself a 10 year old Audi/VW/BMW/MB and put some xW-20 in it, drive it as you normally would, and your question will be answered.
I agree, looked at one and found the Vue with the Honda 3.5 had equal mileage with way more performance and fun factor. (for you Jeep fans I agree if I wanted to do the Rubicon trail the Liberty would be superior but this is a suburban cruiser that might see two 6 inch snowfalls a year.)
Yes but the car winds up costing megabucks because the carbon composite stuff used in planes and race cars is not currently feasible in high volume manufacturing.
JHZR2
Staff member
The real future is moving away from the guzzler nature, and the "I need a v8 for pickup to get on the highway" mentality.
Smaller engines, with less power will be seen in bigger and bigger vehicles. Lots will complain because they're downright lousy drivers and cant fathom the concept of accelerating a 3000 lb vehicle with 120 hp... but theyll either get used to it or pay for it dearly.
These small engines will see a lot of stress, and will likely remain as 30wt or even 40wt oil users.
IMO 20 wt oil is just a patch for the idiots who think they deserve r cant live without 6+ cylinders.
JMH
Smaller engines, with less power will be seen in bigger and bigger vehicles. Lots will complain because they're downright lousy drivers and cant fathom the concept of accelerating a 3000 lb vehicle with 120 hp... but theyll either get used to it or pay for it dearly.
These small engines will see a lot of stress, and will likely remain as 30wt or even 40wt oil users.
IMO 20 wt oil is just a patch for the idiots who think they deserve r cant live without 6+ cylinders.
JMH
"IMO 20 wt oil is just a patch for the idiots who think they deserve r cant live without 6+ cylinders"
Still running straight 40 are ya?
The new CAFE regs pretty much leave the large SUV/Hummer type vehicles alone...making them even more likely to be produced. Seems strange that the auto companies have the technology to make 400 hp cars, but some how they do not have the technology to get much better mpg.
Guzzling the order of the day
David Lazarus
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
If the limited increases in fuel-efficiency standards announced by the Bush administration Tuesday are seen as a win for the auto industry, that's no coincidence.
Automakers have fought long and hard to keep government-imposed fuel efficiency from impairing their ability to crank out gas-slurping sport utility vehicles.
In March, as lawmakers in Washington were taking a renewed look at raising fuel efficiency for SUVs, the main lobbying group for the auto industry sent sponges to members of the House and Senate.
The move wasn't meant to remind politicians that they soaked up nearly $2. 6 million in contributions from automakers in the 2004 election cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. (About two-thirds of that sum went to Republicans.)
Rather, the sponges were meant to convey that automakers have already cleaned up their act, so there was no need for any serious tinkering with efficiency standards.
"We were just trying to portray that our vehicles are 99 percent cleaner than they were 30 years ago," said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing the Big Three U.S. automakers and other leading vehicle producers.
The so-called corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, system was introduced in 1975 in response to skyrocketing oil prices and a growing reliance on foreign crude.
Since 1990, new cars have had to get an average 27.5 miles to the gallon under CAFE. Light trucks, including SUVs, have had to meet a minimum standard of 20.7 mpg, rising to 22.2 mpg in 2007.
Under the Bush administration's guidelines, there will be six new categories of fuel efficiency for light trucks. The lightest ones will have to get an average 28.4 mpg by 2011.
The heaviest vehicles covered by the system will actually see their required fuel efficiency decrease to an average 21.3 mpg. And the heaviest ones of all -- those weighing at least 8,500 pounds, such as the Hummer H2 - - aren't covered at all.
Light trucks now account for more than half of all new vehicles sold in this country. The United States, meanwhile, consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day, most of which goes to making the gas we pump into our tanks.
Most of our oil, in turn, comes from Saudi Arabia and other overseas producers.
"The new fuel economy standards for light trucks have been in the works for years but are too meager to affect oil prices now or in the future," said Joan Claybrook, president of the consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen.
"But they are carefully designed to appease automakers, who resist innovation, and the oil companies, which are raking in record profits," she said.
Christopher Preuss, a spokesman for General Motors, acknowledged that his company and other automakers have long opposed "radical changes to CAFE."
Instead, he said the industry prefers allowing the marketplace to decide what sells and what doesn't. "We're in the business of providing consumers what they want to buy," Preuss said.
Similarly, Territo at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said consumers should have the final say about the sorts of vehicles available (and the mileage they get).
"We offer a vehicle for every consumer and every lifestyle," he said. "It just so happens that consumers are choosing larger vehicles."
Public Citizen's Claybrook responded that consumers may not be eating their peas and carrots, but that doesn't mean the country as a whole should turn its back on reducing our growing dependence on foreign oil.
"The whole purpose of the fuel economy standards is to protect the nation, " she said.
However, Claybrook noted that President Bush and Vice President **** Cheney, both former oil-industry execs, enjoy close ties with Detroit.
As such, she said it's not really surprising that the White House would concoct fuel-efficiency rules that largely reflect the auto industry's perspective.
In fact, Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff, previously served as top lobbyist for both GM and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, precursor to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Card became a professional auto-industry cheerleader after serving a single year as transportation secretary under the first President Bush.
While promoting the interests of GM, Ford and Chrysler as the $600,000-a- year head of the automobile manufacturers association from 1993 to 1998, Card spent at least $15 million lobbying the federal government, according to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity.
He represented the auto industry on a variety of matters, including opposition to higher fuel-efficiency standards.
Card narrowed his focus slightly by working solely as GM's chief lobbyist as of 1999. He was tapped by Bush to serve as White House chief of staff in November 2000.
Shortly before Bush's 2001 inauguration ceremony, GM hosted a lavish farewell party for Card on the roof of Washington's Kennedy Center.
Ken Lisaius, a White House spokesman, said consumers should read nothing into Card's close ties to the auto industry and the administration's approach to fuel efficiency.
"The fact that Secretary Card worked in the auto industry should not be a disqualifier for service to one's country in the government," he said.
Perhaps not. But it should raise an eyebrow or two.
Still running straight 40 are ya?
The new CAFE regs pretty much leave the large SUV/Hummer type vehicles alone...making them even more likely to be produced. Seems strange that the auto companies have the technology to make 400 hp cars, but some how they do not have the technology to get much better mpg.
Guzzling the order of the day
David Lazarus
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
If the limited increases in fuel-efficiency standards announced by the Bush administration Tuesday are seen as a win for the auto industry, that's no coincidence.
Automakers have fought long and hard to keep government-imposed fuel efficiency from impairing their ability to crank out gas-slurping sport utility vehicles.
In March, as lawmakers in Washington were taking a renewed look at raising fuel efficiency for SUVs, the main lobbying group for the auto industry sent sponges to members of the House and Senate.
The move wasn't meant to remind politicians that they soaked up nearly $2. 6 million in contributions from automakers in the 2004 election cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. (About two-thirds of that sum went to Republicans.)
Rather, the sponges were meant to convey that automakers have already cleaned up their act, so there was no need for any serious tinkering with efficiency standards.
"We were just trying to portray that our vehicles are 99 percent cleaner than they were 30 years ago," said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing the Big Three U.S. automakers and other leading vehicle producers.
The so-called corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, system was introduced in 1975 in response to skyrocketing oil prices and a growing reliance on foreign crude.
Since 1990, new cars have had to get an average 27.5 miles to the gallon under CAFE. Light trucks, including SUVs, have had to meet a minimum standard of 20.7 mpg, rising to 22.2 mpg in 2007.
Under the Bush administration's guidelines, there will be six new categories of fuel efficiency for light trucks. The lightest ones will have to get an average 28.4 mpg by 2011.
The heaviest vehicles covered by the system will actually see their required fuel efficiency decrease to an average 21.3 mpg. And the heaviest ones of all -- those weighing at least 8,500 pounds, such as the Hummer H2 - - aren't covered at all.
Light trucks now account for more than half of all new vehicles sold in this country. The United States, meanwhile, consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil a day, most of which goes to making the gas we pump into our tanks.
Most of our oil, in turn, comes from Saudi Arabia and other overseas producers.
"The new fuel economy standards for light trucks have been in the works for years but are too meager to affect oil prices now or in the future," said Joan Claybrook, president of the consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen.
"But they are carefully designed to appease automakers, who resist innovation, and the oil companies, which are raking in record profits," she said.
Christopher Preuss, a spokesman for General Motors, acknowledged that his company and other automakers have long opposed "radical changes to CAFE."
Instead, he said the industry prefers allowing the marketplace to decide what sells and what doesn't. "We're in the business of providing consumers what they want to buy," Preuss said.
Similarly, Territo at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said consumers should have the final say about the sorts of vehicles available (and the mileage they get).
"We offer a vehicle for every consumer and every lifestyle," he said. "It just so happens that consumers are choosing larger vehicles."
Public Citizen's Claybrook responded that consumers may not be eating their peas and carrots, but that doesn't mean the country as a whole should turn its back on reducing our growing dependence on foreign oil.
"The whole purpose of the fuel economy standards is to protect the nation, " she said.
However, Claybrook noted that President Bush and Vice President **** Cheney, both former oil-industry execs, enjoy close ties with Detroit.
As such, she said it's not really surprising that the White House would concoct fuel-efficiency rules that largely reflect the auto industry's perspective.
In fact, Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff, previously served as top lobbyist for both GM and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, precursor to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Card became a professional auto-industry cheerleader after serving a single year as transportation secretary under the first President Bush.
While promoting the interests of GM, Ford and Chrysler as the $600,000-a- year head of the automobile manufacturers association from 1993 to 1998, Card spent at least $15 million lobbying the federal government, according to the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity.
He represented the auto industry on a variety of matters, including opposition to higher fuel-efficiency standards.
Card narrowed his focus slightly by working solely as GM's chief lobbyist as of 1999. He was tapped by Bush to serve as White House chief of staff in November 2000.
Shortly before Bush's 2001 inauguration ceremony, GM hosted a lavish farewell party for Card on the roof of Washington's Kennedy Center.
Ken Lisaius, a White House spokesman, said consumers should read nothing into Card's close ties to the auto industry and the administration's approach to fuel efficiency.
"The fact that Secretary Card worked in the auto industry should not be a disqualifier for service to one's country in the government," he said.
Perhaps not. But it should raise an eyebrow or two.
And my Saab 9-5 that's heavier can do 35 mpg on the highway, and it has shorter gearing too. How you might ask, good aerodynamics like DJ was saying. After weight, which is the greatest factor in overall fuel economy, aerodynamics is the greatest factor in highway fuel economy. SUVs just happen to be rubbish in both regards.
Henry Ford recommended 600w gear oil for his early differentials.
We use slightly lighter viscosities today.
Is it real progress, or demonic CAFE requirements?
Painters stand back from their pictures to get better perspective.
We use slightly lighter viscosities today.
Is it real progress, or demonic CAFE requirements?
Painters stand back from their pictures to get better perspective.
A good "power adder" too!
Mandate manual transmissions. Automatics only if you are registered handicapped.
- Status
Similar threads
