Recent Topics
How old is the Castrol Edge?
by stygz
22 seconds ago
185/60/14 with 195/70/14
by GreeCguy
43 minutes 21 seconds ago
Bloomberg article on Techron
by chiefsfan1
49 minutes 39 seconds ago
38% of the earth is made of .... Bridgmanite???
by aa1986
59 minutes 22 seconds ago
1998 Buick Century Custom Steering 56k miles
by Gito
Today at 06:29 PM
Price Check...4Runner
by klt1986
Today at 06:13 PM
Quaker State score at Autozone!
by RamFan
Today at 05:08 PM
Anyone that can read Chinese or Japanese??
by Darwin1138
Today at 04:10 PM
PureOne PL14459 cut-open
by filb14
Today at 03:30 PM
Edge Gold Btl + M1 AFE 0w-30 $1 Qt at AZ **PICS!**
by Turk
Today at 03:07 PM
Bon Jovi is as good as Beyoncé
by 285south
Today at 02:52 PM
Robots are lookin good!
by andrewg
Today at 02:47 PM
Newest Members
Kaiser_Sosse, jnormando, consolidated, mike_a, dlayman
52261 Registered Users
Who's Online
134 registered (01rangerxl, abycat, aa1986, 2010_FX4, 11 invisible), 1475 Guests and 242 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
52261 Members
66 Forums
223809 Topics
3550017 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#3389856 - 06/05/14 03:02 PM is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20?
Jasper8146 Offline


Registered: 04/25/10
Posts: 160
Loc: Lenexa, Kansas
I just read the Motor oil 101 to 109 here on BITOG and if I understood correctly what he was saying, it seemed to me that he was saying that all motor oils were actually too thick at room temperature to give optimal lubrication and optimal mpg at initial start up but that 0W oils were thinner than others and thus minimized the problem. So, my question is for a 2014 Kia Forte 2.0 GDI which recommends 5W-20 or 5W-30, if I'm not doing any abusive driving or high speed driving in Arizona during the summer, would 0W-20 and 0W-30 be better choices if my goal is to achieve the highest fuel economy? Am seriously thinking about the Toyota 0W-20 as it seems to have gotten rave reviews here on BITOG and other places. On the other hand, I don't want to jeopardize the warranty either, especially if using the 0W-20 is not going to make a meaningful difference in mpg. What are people's thoughts here about this? This vehicle only has 2300 miles on it and am just about to do my first oil change. Thanks in advance for the input.

Top
#3389864 - 06/05/14 03:15 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Jasper8146]
4wheeldog Offline


Registered: 04/23/12
Posts: 319
Loc: East Mountains, NM
I doubt the mileage increase will be anything you could put your finger on.

We also do not know what Kia knows about 0/20 in their motors that we do not. I suspect that they just did not consider them, when making the specification, but it is a new car, and you really do not have a lot to gain but going outside the manufacturer's specs.....JMHO.

Top
#3389867 - 06/05/14 03:17 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Jasper8146]
surfstar Offline


Registered: 09/16/04
Posts: 4451
Loc: Santa Barbara, CA
You'll save more money by buying 5w20 on sale, vs the gas savings obtained with 0w20.

Top
#3389871 - 06/05/14 03:24 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Jasper8146]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7924
Loc: Saskatoon canada
The only difference between those 2 grades will be at start up,and only once the ambient temps get into the negatives,so for your Arizona conditions there will be no meaningful difference so pick a 5w-20 grade in the flavour you like best,or what's on sale and call er done
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3389876 - 06/05/14 03:29 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Jasper8146]
6starprez Offline


Registered: 02/25/12
Posts: 66
Loc: North Carolina
I doubt your 2014 Kia Forte 2.0 GDI calls for a 5W30. I'm sure the required oil is 0W20 or 5W20 and using a 0W in place of 5W will not void your warranty.
_________________________
'12 Subaru Impreza Sport Limited 57K - M1 0W-30 AFE
'02 Honda Odyssey EX 189K - M1 AFE 0W-30
'99 Ford Explorer Limited 5.0 182K - M1 0W-40

Top
#3389884 - 06/05/14 03:38 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: 6starprez]
Jasper8146 Offline


Registered: 04/25/10
Posts: 160
Loc: Lenexa, Kansas
I just double checked the owner's manual and 5W-20 and 5W-30 are both recommended for all temperatures. Surprisingly, it even says 10W-30 is okay for temperatures of 0 fahrenheit and above.

Top
#3389889 - 06/05/14 03:43 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Jasper8146]
4wheeldog Offline


Registered: 04/23/12
Posts: 319
Loc: East Mountains, NM
Originally Posted By: Jasper8146
I just double checked the owner's manual and 5W-20 and 5W-30 are both recommended for all temperatures. Surprisingly, it even says 10W-30 is okay for temperatures of 0 fahrenheit and above.


You will see a bigger difference in mileage (Although still very small) between 5/30 and 5/20 than you will between 5/20 and 0/20.

Top
#3389895 - 06/05/14 03:49 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Jasper8146]
SLATRON Online   content


Registered: 10/20/13
Posts: 268
Loc: upstate NY
Amsoil site says 5w20 or 5w30 at all temps but 5/20 is preferred, & 10w30 ok above 0*f
Using a 0 grade instead of 5 won't make much MPG gains, but I feel most useful in winter months for cold starts.


Edited by SLATRON (06/05/14 03:53 PM)

Top
#3389900 - 06/05/14 03:52 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Jasper8146]
901Memphis Offline


Registered: 08/14/10
Posts: 6366
Loc: Northern Kentucky
I would use a synthetic 5w20 during the warranty period.
_________________________
1999 Ford Taurus 146k (Vulcan v6) - M1 High Mileage 5w30 | Fram Ultra XG 3600
2002 Buick Century 105k - Peak 5w30 / Fram Ultra XG 3980 / Filter mag

Top
#3389911 - 06/05/14 03:58 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Jasper8146]
tig1 Online   content


Registered: 01/03/09
Posts: 10032
Loc: Illinois
Possibly.
_________________________
2007 Ford Fusion 147,000 miles
M1 0-20
2007 Ford Focus 131,000 miles
M1 0-20
10,000 mile OCIs on both engines
M1 ATF
M1 10-30 in all OPE

Top
#3389926 - 06/05/14 04:07 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Jasper8146]
FetchFar Offline


Registered: 10/17/13
Posts: 831
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Jasper8146
I just read the Motor oil 101 to 109 here on BITOG and if I understood correctly what he was saying, it seemed to me that he was saying that all motor oils were actually too thick at room temperature to give optimal lubrication and optimal mpg at initial start up but that 0W oils were thinner than others and thus minimized the problem.

That makes sense, good advice. Look at it this way, the "perfect" oil-of-the-future will not get much thicker when cold and not thin out when hot, same viscosity all the time. We can't do that with current technology, but we can get closer to that when we use a 0W-20.

Originally Posted By: Jasper8146
So, my question is for a 2014 Kia Forte 2.0 GDI which recommends 5W-20 or 5W-30, if I'm not doing any abusive driving or high speed driving in Arizona during the summer, would 0W-20 and 0W-30 be better choices if my goal is to achieve the highest fuel economy? Am seriously thinking about the Toyota 0W-20 as it seems to have gotten rave reviews here on BITOG and other places. On the other hand, I don't want to jeopardize the warranty either, especially if using the 0W-20 is not going to make a meaningful difference in mpg. What are people's thoughts here about this? This vehicle only has 2300 miles on it and am just about to do my first oil change. Thanks in advance for the input.


Like others have said, there is a small fuel economy advantage to using a 0W-20. Small. Anyway, we have had similar discussions about durability of engines using a 20 vs. 30 (or 40), and, to me, this sums it up: http://priuschat.com/attachments/fuel-efficient-motor-oil-technical-article-pdf.11772/ I don't think a 20 is a durability problem, and just looking at the Stribeck Curve convinces me the Shell tribologists are right, saying no problem.
_________________________
'07 BMW 530xi N52 engine, E60 chassis, 255 hp
'11 Chevy Camaro LS, 3.6L V6, Zeta chassis, 312 hp
'40 Chevrolet Special Deluxe 2-Door Town Sedan

Top
#3389957 - 06/05/14 04:33 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: FetchFar]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27315
Loc: a prisoner island
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
and just looking at the Stribeck Curve convinces me the Shell tribologists are right, saying no problem.


Can you explain how you look at the Streibeck curve, without knowing either the geometry or the applied load ?

Bottom axis is (operational viscosity x surface speed / applied load).

Unless you know those, you can't read the Streibeck curve.

Unless I'm missing something and there's another way.

Top
#3390020 - 06/05/14 05:52 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Shannow]
FetchFar Offline


Registered: 10/17/13
Posts: 831
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Bottom axis is (operational viscosity x surface speed / applied load.


Not "load", its actually pressure. Thats load per unit area, maybe thats where the missing geometry you mention comes from. Therefore, more surface area means a thicker oil film, all other things (visc, speed) being equal.
_________________________
'07 BMW 530xi N52 engine, E60 chassis, 255 hp
'11 Chevy Camaro LS, 3.6L V6, Zeta chassis, 312 hp
'40 Chevrolet Special Deluxe 2-Door Town Sedan

Top
#3390026 - 06/05/14 06:04 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Shannow]
FetchFar Offline


Registered: 10/17/13
Posts: 831
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Can you explain how you look at the Streibeck curve, without knowing either the geometry or the applied load ?


I discussed this before on these forums in more detail, but, essentially, the bearing engineer knows the worst-case load force (max torque), at a low rpm (lugging), and knows what viscosity oil he wants to use, and then he determines the bearing surface area that will give minimum friction on the Stribeck Curve plus some margin to allow for normal viscosity drops with oil ageing (fuel dilution, VI degradation, etc.). A good choice would be a Stribeck Curve choice of 0.4 on the http://www.stle.org/resources/lubelearn/lubrication/ chart, near minimum friction, yet allows for less viscosity should it occur. .... Now notice the small difference between a 30 oil vs. a 20 oil, and notice that using the thinner oil really doesn't move you to the left on the Stribeck Curve much at all (notice log scale).
_________________________
'07 BMW 530xi N52 engine, E60 chassis, 255 hp
'11 Chevy Camaro LS, 3.6L V6, Zeta chassis, 312 hp
'40 Chevrolet Special Deluxe 2-Door Town Sedan

Top
#3390079 - 06/05/14 07:31 PM Re: is 0W-20 always better for mpg than 5W-20? [Re: Jasper8146]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27315
Loc: a prisoner island
I'm fairly familiar with the curve, and that the applied load is pressure...how do you know what the applied load (pressure) IS for the different geometries and families of engines ?

...and therefore where on the curve that you are when stating that 20s are right ?

You also need to get the right curve that includes the extensi0n off to the left for friction modified boundary conditions, because as per the paper you linked a few posts back, engines are increasingly operating way off to the left of the chart (which, yes, is logarithmic)

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >