M1 0w40 in Ford 5.4 3V - Fuel Economy Difference

[Gokhan]

M1 0W-40 SN has a very good kind of inorganic friction modifier (trinuclear moly) and a good dose of quality organic friction modifier. Also don't forget that it uses an excellent, low-friction base oil. It used to be rated SL/Energy Conserving until the latter part of the spec got obsolete.

On top of that, many OEMs have been jumping into the xW-20 bandwagon, even if it could actually result in worse fuel economy because of increased metal-to-metal contact caused by thin oil. Chances are that, despite the OEM recommendation, the OP's engine likes thicker oil better to begin with, and there is no more fuel-efficient thicker oil than M1 0W-40 SN with its light xW-40 viscosity (13.5 cP @ 100 C) and excellent friction modifier (FM) package as well as excellent, low-friction base oil.

 

[Kuato]

This thread makes me want to try 0w40 in the F150. It's specified for 5w20, currently using 0w30.

I've also driven the Alligator Alley, and in the middle of the state it is usually very light or no other traffic, flat as a board and straight as an arrow. 80 is a safe speed there most of the time.

 

[Trav]

Try it! I have been using Mobil ! 0w40 in 5.4 Fords, Honda iVTEC 3.5 and other engines for years that spec 5w20 some have gone over 150K with it in there.
Fuel economy didn't take it in the shorts and engine wear seems almost non existent. No UOA numbers but micrometer readings of the cam lobes, new vs almost 200K and compression numbers indicate that.

The cams can tell you more than any other part of the engine, they are under more stress and are one of the last components to receive oil at start up, this is especially true of OHC engines.
If the lobes are not showing any wear then its a good bet the rest of the engine isn't either.

 

[bigt61]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Try it! I have been using Mobil ! 0w40 in 5.4 Fords, Honda iVTEC 3.5 and other engines for years that spec 5w20 some have gone over 150K with it in there.
Fuel economy didn't take it in the shorts and engine wear seems almost non existent. No UOA numbers but micrometer readings of the cam lobes, new vs almost 200K and compression numbers indicate that.

The cams can tell you more than any other part of the engine, they are under more stress and are one of the last components to receive oil at start up, this is especially true of OHC engines.
If the lobes are not showing any wear then its a good bet the rest of the engine isn't either.


I agree. Back in the early 80's I ran Straight 50 in my small block Chevy road race car. At end of year tear downs, everything in the motor looked great except the camshaft, which we had to replace. We switched to 20W-50 and the cam wear went away.

 

[FastLane]

The 4.6 and 5.4 run their best off 5W30. You should try M1 5W30.

 

[Trav]

How do come to that conclusion? One could argue a 0w is better for cold starts in extreme cold temps and 40 provides higher film strength.
5w30 works fine in them but they run "best" on it?

 

[Garak]

Remember, Trav, some of us in Canada are stuck on the 5w-30, because that is a good winter (and year round) viscosity, and commonly available, and regularly on sale. M1 0w-40 until very recently was almost an exotic, since it used to be only available in 1 L bottles, rarely rolled back. So, it was a very expensive proposition.

Now, with M1 0w-40 and Castrol 0w-40 in jugs and on rollback, it's not so bad.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I've been apparently getting better fuel economy with M1 0W-40 SN than with xW-20, too.


Better fuel economy because 0W-40 lubricates better. Why people buy 0W-20 is beyond me.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I've been apparently getting better fuel economy with M1 0W-40 SN than with xW-20, too.

Better fuel economy because 0W-40 lubricates better. Why people buy 0W-20 is beyond me.

Thicker oil lubricates better -- yes, true.

However, thicker oil also has more hydrodynamic friction inside the oil film (puts you further right on the Stribeck curve below), potentially increasing the energy loss due to internal friction of the oil inside the bearings. That's why OEMs have been pushing for thinner oil.

However, in my case, M1 0W-40 SN doesn't seem to negatively affect fuel economy and in fact it seems to improve it. This could be simply be because of my bearing geometry and also what's going on in the cylinders and valvetrain, the latter of which (cylinders and valvetrain) are not necessarily hydrodynamically lubricated.

So, it's a complicated question & answer. Nevertheless, M1 0W-40 SN doesn't seem overly thick to decrease the fuel economy and its complex inorganic/organic friction-modifier system is working well.

I will create some thread at some point showing the actual official Sequence VID data, which in fact shows that thinner oil in many cases actually decreases the fuel economy.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Better fuel economy because 0W-40 lubricates better. Why people buy 0W-20 is beyond me.

Merk, remember our little chat about respected members not trolling?

In any case, you and Gokhan are both well aware that the fuel economy difference between a 0w-40 and a 20 grade is not measurable outside a laboratory. The 20 grade will give better fuel economy, without question. Measuring it is another matter altogether.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: Garak
The 20 grade will give better fuel economy, without question. Measuring it is another matter altogether.


I like the way you put that. In extreme cold conditions like those seen in Canada would a 0w40 be preferable to a 5w30 for its cold flow ability if the price were equal?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: Garak
The 20 grade will give better fuel economy, without question. Measuring it is another matter altogether.


I like the way you put that. In extreme cold conditions like those seen in Canada would a 0w40 be preferable to a 5w30 for its cold flow ability if the price were equal?


Depends on where you are and what winter temps you are seeing. If it is a mild winter and you are closer to 0C, the 5w-30 is going to be thinner most of the time. On the other hand if she's a cold one and you are well below -20C and hitting -30C a number of times, the 0w-40 is going to be thinner and so it would be preferable IMHO.

 

[FastLane]

M1 5w30 works at -40. I sold one truck with 300,000 kms and it had 180psi of compression on all the cylinders. It now has ran as a work truck and pushed over 500,000 kms. The engine is still good but the body is shot.

I think some of you try to out think engineers. I have friend who sells farms. They run their cars and trucks to insane miles. 5w30 is what Ford told them to run in their 4.6 and 5.4's. 5w20 was spec for fuel economy.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FastLane
M1 5w30 works at -40.


Actually, that's just the pour point. The reason it is a 5w-30 is that it is not able to meet the 0w-xx designation requirements, otherwise it would be labelled as a 0w-30.

These two tests are CCS and MRV, one which measures the oil's affect on cranking speed, the other which deals with the oil's ability to pump. The cranking limits are much stricter.

For a 5w-30, the MRV test point is -35C and the CCS test point is -30C. To qualify as a 5w-30 the oil must be below the viscosity limits for each category through their respective testing methodologies. This means
The limits for the 0w-xx designation are similar, but 5C lower.
I don't think anybody is trying to out-think the Engineers. The 0w-xx designation essentially requires synthetic base stocks, so if a manufacturer spec's a 0w-xx, they are basically requiring a synthetic. This can be a turn-off. This is why the 0w-xx designation oils are sometimes listed as acceptable alternatives or "for extreme cold use" in the owner's manual.

The 2V Modular was indeed designed to originally run a 30 weight oil. The 3V had a few revisions to it and was spec'd for a 5w-20 from the get-go vs the back-spec of the 5w-20 grade to the 2V. One can argue that the 3V might do better on a xW-30 but there's a lack of any real data to support that. The Modular is generally an extremely long-lived engine in any configuration and run on whatever oil the owner chooses. They aren't picky.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

2007 F150, 4.2 V6
I have been thinking about using M1 0W40 in my trucks engine. The 0W40 that donnyj08 just recently donated to me, (Thanks donny

) was used in my neighbors Buick Regal. It runs very smooth and quiet. That's not the only reason I like it. I have done a lot of research on it and am liking what I have read.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
That's not the only reason I like it. I have done a lot of research on it and am liking what I have read.

Add me on that research, too. M1 0W-40 SN seems to be the best oil I've ever used. My UOA won't come for a year but I expect excellent results.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Better fuel economy because 0W-40 lubricates better. Why people buy 0W-20 is beyond me.

The 20 grade will give better fuel economy, without question.

No, not without question at all. It's a very complicated question that depends on the particular engine and can only be answered empirically after many tests.

You get the best fuel economy in the minimum of the Stribeck curve, where you have the least friction. Here n is the (dynamic) viscosity, v is the RPM (speed), and P is the load pressure (not oil pressure). This happens in the ML region, where there is some wear (contact) unlike in the HL region, where there is no wear (contact).

Since P depends on the bearing geometry (engine design), cylinder geometry, etc., you don't know if xW-20 puts you in the minimum or to the left of the minimum, where there is more friction and less fuel economy. On top of that, various parts of the engine run in different regions to begin with. Even worse, v and P widely vary with the operating conditions.

Therefore, it's a very complicated question that doesn't have a definite answer.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I like the way you put that. In extreme cold conditions like those seen in Canada would a 0w40 be preferable to a 5w30 for its cold flow ability if the price were equal?

If I were worried about the unaided cold starts on the worst Saskatchewan winter days, yes, I'd prefer a 0w-40 over a 5w-30. But, in practice, I've never had any problems with 5w-XX of any variety.

We always talk about how we wish we had more latitude in oil selection for our vehicles, but I don't think it would matter a lot in the end, except to us here on BITOG. GM has listed 0w-30 as an option in place of 5w-30 for Canada for about as long as they had 5w-30 as their primary choice. That didn't exactly take off. I can only think of two ILSAC 0w-30s that have been on the market for any length of time here, those being Castrol 0w-30 ILSAC (non-GC) and Petro-Canada 0w-30 ILSAC. Everything else is an HDEO or a Euro grade. M1 0w-30 AFE is very new to Canada. And, even the Euro 0w-XX stuff was traditionally in one litre bottles, which cranks the price up more.

I'd use a 0w-XX, and have in the past. I just rarely have to do unaided starts, and a 5w-30 conventional has never failed me.

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
No, not without question at all. It's a very complicated question that depends on the particular engine and can only be answered empirically after many tests.

Of course, none of the tests can be conducted by us, and the automakers who have conducted them (and who benefit most from incremental gains in fuel economy) are going to 20s. I've seen Stribeck curves before. My assertion is virtually without question. Viscosity, most accurately correlated with HTHS, is the biggest factor of an oil's contribution to fuel economy. And tribologists have already talked about lubricants spending more time in boundary lubrication yet still reducing the coefficient of friction. Wear is only very peripherally related to the coefficient of friction. Fuel economy contribution of an oil is, however, closely related to the coefficient of friction.

Efficiency has been the driving force behind reduction of friction and reduction of viscosity. If a 0w-40 with a high VI and a boatload of friction modifiers was an automatic CAFE winner versus a 0w-20 with a high VI and a boatload of friction modifiers, we'd see the 0w-40 used more than we do. Even GM is moving on from 5w-30, and it's not to 0w-40, with which they do have ample experience. If it gave them the CAFE credits, you can be sure there would be an M1 0w-40 sticker on the oil cap.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Trav
I like the way you put that. In extreme cold conditions like those seen in Canada would a 0w40 be preferable to a 5w30 for its cold flow ability if the price were equal?

If I were worried about the unaided cold starts on the worst Saskatchewan winter days, yes, I'd prefer a 0w-40 over a 5w-30. But, in practice, I've never had any problems with 5w-XX of any variety.


Also, the "W" ratings have been messed with over the years.

Picking up from a point Joe90 made a few months ago, here's some of the points in the progression.

to

Given that 1C below the test temperatures the oil can (not will) exhibit shear stresses, and extreme viscosity and still pass, I think a modern 5W anything is likely better in the cold than a 5W of 25 years ago.

I think Joe's point was that they lowered the overall performance standard for W ratings at the behest of the oil companies, and they were supposed to be much stricter...(VIIs mess up the MRV).

In support, here's what Cat specify, having stepped away from the API's J300 (maybe due to the above shenanigans ???) Their 0W is half the MRV at 5C lower, thus the worst Cat 0W would likely be 1/4 of the allowable according to J300

 

[Garak]

See if you can do me a favour and look at your original pictures or the documents you photographed. I might be getting old and losing some vision here.

Specifically, look at the right page. It looks like while the max viscosity was doubled, the temperature of the measurement was cut by 5 Celsius. Up top on the right, it says 0w and 3250 at -30, whereas the linked chart shows 0w and 6200 at -35. I'm not claiming to be able to read all the fine print, so I could be totally confused and reading something dreadfully wrong in the chart on the right hand page.