READ PLEASE! 5w20 vs 5w30 engine life? opinions ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: skyship
I thought GM was recommending 5/20's, in fact almost every car sold in the US seems to have 0 or 5/20 stamped in the manual by the CAFE bean counters??
I've been looking at Ford engines mostly, so perhaps some person could look up a few GM engines to see if they are recommending 30 grades or not.


The only GMs I've seen with the 5w-20 cap are smaller displacement non- forced induction cars. The base Cadillac ATS calls for it. The turbo and V6 call for 5w30. The non turbo Cruze and Sonic probably call for 5w-20 as well, but I have never seen a Malibu or larger GM call for anything other than 5w-30. They have continued to stick with 5w-30.

To tell you the truth I sure hope 5w-30 doesn't become the 10w-40 of the oil community. I have more than gotten over my thicker is better tendencies, but both of my cars are older high output V8s that call for 5w-30. I don't see that happening as long as GM keeps the Corvette specc'd for it. It is interesting to see a number of high prformance applications are specifying 0w-40. Ford even recommends 5w-50 for the GT-500.

It all sounds like mixed information and confusion to me. I'll run what the car calls for.
 
This material seems to parallel what Toyota suggests in their late model owners manuals with reference to viscosity selection.
 
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I can't imagine my 86 year old grandmothers new Taurus lasting any less with the required 5W-20. She never requires that the engine produce any power at all. Pure water would provide sufficient lubrication for a lifetime of use!

However, I am another story. My friends call me "relentless". And, I explore the rev limiter of every car I've ever owned. I tow, I off road, I do track days, I drag race. My vehicles are well cared for, but used to the maximum.

I get far better UOA's here in South Florida with a heavier viscosity oil. Gee, I wonder why?

clap-animated-animation-clap-000340-large.gif
This is the best read so far. Real world conditions based oil weight decisions.


Yes, I wish I can do UOA easily here. However, all my butt and ear meter seems agree 30 is better than 20 on hot tropics climate.
 
I have noticed a difference in my moms focus with 5w20 vs 5w30. Gas mileage is no different . And the engine is less clicky . Imo 0w30 is the best oil weight. although 5w30 is usually fine. I see it like this I do not believe the govt has our best interest at heart. Whether it is how milk is so full of calcium or how corm is a great vegetable or when they say this money you are giving us will help schools and blah blah blah so I have no reason to believe what they say regarding oil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pbm
A far more useful discussion would be the advantage of a 0W-20 or a 0W-30 over a 5W motor oil. Cold starts are said to be responsible for a significant amount of wear, yes even in Florida, and this wear would be mitigated by the use of a 0W motor oil.
 
Last edited:
In Florida there would be no difference between a 5w and a 0w at cold startup. The difference between a 5w and a 0w is only realized close to 0F.
 
Originally Posted By: bubbajoe_2112
Originally Posted By: Danh
We have a real-world, large number comparison of 5w/20 vs 5w/30 longevity going on right now: Ford vs GM. Ford has recommended 5w/20 for at least a decade while GM continues with 5w/30.

If 5w/20 really shortened engine life by 30%, don't you think Ford would be suffering in comparison to GM? It seems to me there is no real perceived difference in engine longevity between the two. The bottom line seems to be that 5w/20 allows an engine to last every bit as long as 5w/30 if the engine was designed with it in mind. Also, let's not forget that a disproportinate amount of wear occurs on cold start-ups, where a lighter grade of oil is helpful.

But as others have said, if you feel beter going "thicker", have at it.


Yep, and don't forget that Honda has been running 0W20 in Japan since 2001 with no issues...and the key point is: engines designed to run on 0w20/5w20 have shown no issues.


Plus, there are the BITOG hobbyists, who love to experiment with different oil grades. They post UOA after UOA but I haven't seen anything that convinced me that there was a demonstrable improvement between the factory spec grade and the next higher grade. On the other hand, they don't show degradation, either. If the car is out of warranty do what you want.
 
Originally Posted By: FoxS
Don't be silly. The Japanese know nothing about engine longevity.

And Ford is the least competent of the domestic manufacturers. They took the biggest bailout. Proof that they are engineering boneheads.
I'd like to step in for a reference check.

Ford was actually the only of the Big Three to NOT take part in the auto bailout. The government bought majority shares in General Motors, and cut a deal for Fiat to purchase Chrysler, but Ford remained steadfast the entire time.

Here's a good blow-by-blow written by Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09...ttner-says.html

This is in part due to their strong global market in Europe and Asia vs. GM and Chrysler, particularly in their sale of auto parts to other auto manufacturers. Ford also simply had a more competitive auto line that was able to adapt to higher fuel prices (e.g. intro of EcoBoost, heavier use of 2L engine, etc.) than GM and Chrysler which showed sluggish sales and unimaginative car design.

All of the Big Three are back on track, and relatively speaking, Ford is actually the most competent out of Detroit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pbm
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I can't imagine my 86 year old grandmothers new Taurus lasting any less with the required 5W-20. She never requires that the engine produce any power at all. Pure water would provide sufficient lubrication for a lifetime of use!

However, I am another story. My friends call me "relentless". And, I explore the rev limiter of every car I've ever owned. I tow, I off road, I do track days, I drag race. My vehicles are well cared for, but used to the maximum.

I get far better UOA's here in South Florida with a heavier viscosity oil. Gee, I wonder why?


Could it be because you match viscosity to how the vehicle is used instead of the one size fits all stamped on the fill cap and in the OM mentality? Good on you!
 
Originally Posted By: Danh
We have a real-world, large number comparison of 5w/20 vs 5w/30 longevity going on right now: Ford vs GM. Ford has recommended 5w/20 for at least a decade while GM continues with 5w/30.

If 5w/20 really shortened engine life by 30%, don't you think Ford would be suffering in comparison to GM? It seems to me there is no real perceived difference in engine longevity between the two. The bottom line seems to be that 5w/20 allows an engine to last every bit as long as 5w/30 if the engine was designed with it in mind. Also, let's not forget that a disproportinate amount of wear occurs on cold start-ups, where a lighter grade of oil is helpful.

But as others have said, if you feel beter going "thicker", have at it.


I have to disagree with this for two reasons. It is not reasonable to assume different oil recommendations between Ford and GM would necessarily be a larger deciding factor in engine longevity than the design of the engines themselves. Also, while it is not unusual to see Ford cars and light trucks wear out an engine in commercial use, from what I've seen the GMs don't. I'm not saying that the GM engines last longer than the Ford engines, just that some Ford engines eventually reach EOL due to wear and the GM's just plain don't.
 
Originally Posted By: FoxS
Don't be silly. The Japanese know nothing about engine longevity.

And Ford is the least competent of the domestic manufacturers. They took the biggest bailout. Proof that they are engineering boneheads.


At least a couple of posters apparently failed to recognize obvious sarcasm.
 
Originally Posted By: Hyde244
Originally Posted By: FoxS
Don't be silly. The Japanese know nothing about engine longevity.

And Ford is the least competent of the domestic manufacturers. They took the biggest bailout. Proof that they are engineering boneheads.
I'd like to step in for a reference check.

Ford was actually the only of the Big Three to NOT take part in the auto bailout. The government bought majority shares in General Motors, and cut a deal for Fiat to purchase Chrysler, but Ford remained steadfast the entire time.

Here's a good blow-by-blow written by Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09...ttner-says.html

This is in part due to their strong global market in Europe and Asia vs. GM and Chrysler, particularly in their sale of auto parts to other auto manufacturers. Ford also simply had a more competitive auto line that was able to adapt to higher fuel prices (e.g. intro of EcoBoost, heavier use of 2L engine, etc.) than GM and Chrysler which showed sluggish sales and unimaginative car design.

All of the Big Three are back on track, and relatively speaking, Ford is actually the most competent out of Detroit.


I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. In the States no one builds a longer lasting engine than the Japanese, despite their love for thin oils, and, yes, Ford didn't take a bailout.
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I can't imagine my 86 year old grandmothers new Taurus lasting any less with the required 5W-20. She never requires that the engine produce any power at all. Pure water would provide sufficient lubrication for a lifetime of use!

However, I am another story. My friends call me "relentless". And, I explore the rev limiter of every car I've ever owned. I tow, I off road, I do track days, I drag race. My vehicles are well cared for, but used to the maximum.

I get far better UOA's here in South Florida with a heavier viscosity oil. Gee, I wonder why?


Could it be because you match viscosity to how the vehicle is used instead of the one size fits all stamped on the fill cap and in the OM mentality? Good on you!


01.gif
pure awesomeness!
 
Originally Posted By: dedonderosa
READ THIS OVER ON A MUSTANG FORUM BUT WANTED TO GET SOME OTHER OPINION ON THIS

ORIGINAL LINK http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/2011-mustang-talk/379969-5w20-vs-5w30-debate-rages.html.....

While that may be the link from which the copy/paste here was acquired, that is not original link from which the copy paste on the Mustang Forum was obtained. As I posted before, that manifesto regarding " You will get at best about 2% better fuel economy, but you may get up to 30% shorter engine life !" has been posted on the SynLube Site (link) for as long as it's been up, which is quite some time. Yes, it's been discussed here before so contrary to the opinion/statement that this is somehow new information, it's not. The only thing missing from the copy paste manifesto is the SynLube recommendation for SynLube's never change the oil 5w50. lol Now that's what I call a reliable, authoritative unbiased source.
crazy.gif


Also the Machinery Lubrication posted in Mustang link is also linked at the bottom of the Syn Lube site and dates to 7/2003. Again, not exactly timely new information posted here. Real world results of 5w20 in pc use for now over 10 years in some vehicles seems to suggest imo something far less than 30% shortened engine life.

All that said, as pointed out, if running 5w30 instead of 5w20 give you the warm fuzzies, go for it.
 
Originally Posted By: yonyon
I have to disagree with this for two reasons. It is not reasonable to assume different oil recommendations between Ford and GM would necessarily be a larger deciding factor in engine longevity than the design of the engines themselves. Also, while it is not unusual to see Ford cars and light trucks wear out an engine in commercial use, from what I've seen the GMs don't. I'm not saying that the GM engines last longer than the Ford engines, just that some Ford engines eventually reach EOL due to wear and the GM's just plain don't.


I think this has more to do with engine design. Compare the Mustang 5.0 to the Camaro SS. The Camaro uses the old GM method of pushrods and large displacement. These cars both make the same horsepower, but the Camaro has a 6.2L. GM V8s tend to be lazy revving and rely more on low end torque. I don't think an LS3 is working as hard for its output.

That said, old style pushrods is what I prefer. If I had to choose, I'd have the Camaro.
 
bigjl, don't label people as xenophobic just because they point out that you ramble.

Especially not within another rambling post.

Don't state that 20 weight will take you from 6mpg to 6.06mpg as made up numbers and then claim you have meaningful facts from a Nissan Pathfinder. You are doing what has become classic on this site - make an opinion, select a highly limited datapoint, and then ignore a datapoint of far more significance ie Ford Motor Company's actual fuel economy spec that requires a saving in fuel if they are to approve a 20 weight vs a 30 weight.

Don't make stupid comments like why don't I go to Cuba.

Learn to argue with facts that have weight instead of claiming limited datapoints as facts. You're copying too many others who do just that and rambling to boot. Every post you write, one sentence is on the topic then we get a long diatribe about your life and what oil you put in your Clio. Boring!
 
Originally Posted By: yonyon
Originally Posted By: Danh
We have a real-world, large number comparison of 5w/20 vs 5w/30 longevity going on right now: Ford vs GM. Ford has recommended 5w/20 for at least a decade while GM continues with 5w/30.

If 5w/20 really shortened engine life by 30%, don't you think Ford would be suffering in comparison to GM? It seems to me there is no real perceived difference in engine longevity between the two. The bottom line seems to be that 5w/20 allows an engine to last every bit as long as 5w/30 if the engine was designed with it in mind. Also, let's not forget that a disproportinate amount of wear occurs on cold start-ups, where a lighter grade of oil is helpful.

But as others have said, if you feel beter going "thicker", have at it.


I have to disagree with this for two reasons. It is not reasonable to assume different oil recommendations between Ford and GM would necessarily be a larger deciding factor in engine longevity than the design of the engines themselves. Also, while it is not unusual to see Ford cars and light trucks wear out an engine in commercial use, from what I've seen the GMs don't. I'm not saying that the GM engines last longer than the Ford engines, just that some Ford engines eventually reach EOL due to wear and the GM's just plain don't.


Any objective set of eyes can see this is a false statement because both companies have nearly the same amount gems and defects percentage wise as the other. There is no absolute statement you can make about any mass produced product.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top