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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, the '84 and '93 J300s had 0W as
CCS, 3250@-30C
MRV, 30,000@-35C ('93), and borderline pumping @ -35C ('84)

Then they essentially doubled in value, but at 5C lower.
 
I will be interested in seeing your UOA. I've got a 100k mile 3v 4.6L with some elevated wear metals in a recent analysis. It's always been a noisy engine since new but has recently become louder than usual (hence the UOA). It is quiet on cold starts but gets louder as it comes up to operating temps. The noise does not necessarily go away above 1200 RPM like your typical VVT noise either. I'm a bit skeptical that a heavier oil will quiet this one down, but I'm due for a change and am considering trying it. I was thinking about trying a 30w, but I do have a bunch of 5w40 in the garage.

Hmm.
 
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.

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


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.

That is purely a Hypothetical response figuring thinner oil takes less energy=Less fuel. Real world, it doesn't work that way. I challenge you to use a thicker oil instead of a light weight oil specified and find out it makes no difference, then make that assumption. I have found-Real World-No difference between 5w20/5w30 or 10w30 or 0w40 now.
 
Did you read my response? I have pointed out before, in a mathematically rigorous fashion, that one isn't going to see a difference in the real world. The automakers, however, have much better facilities to determine that tiny difference.
 
Originally Posted By: Panzerman
That is purely a Hypothetical response figuring thinner oil takes less energy=Less fuel. Real world, it doesn't work that way. I challenge you to use a thicker oil instead of a light weight oil specified and find out it makes no difference, then make that assumption. I have found-Real World-No difference between 5w20/5w30 or 10w30 or 0w40 now.


It is there, and it is real.

In standardised tests, the thinner oil uses less fuel ... to do the job of the standardised tests... they are standardised to take the random driver factor out of it.

In the standardised testing, to achieve a GF-5, the oils MUST produce repeatable economy gains over the reference oils, and then maintain some smaller fraction of that over an extended period.

And it's of the order of 2% overall...still there and still a fact.

But drivers aren't standardised, and you aren't driving the standardised warm-up and load cycle...so you firstly get different numbers from the EPA figures. And secondly, the chances of you ever getting repeatable results to 1-2% accuracy are nil.

I DID use a thicker oil in my J Car.

went from an SAE 30 to a 25W70...book end extremes, and got a serious mileage penalty, and a very sluggish engine when cold (2.0L J-Car wagon could scarcely get out of it's own way at the best of times.).
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
[

I DID use a thicker oil in my J Car.

went from an SAE 30 to a 25W70...book end extremes, and got a serious mileage penalty, and a very sluggish engine when cold (2.0L J-Car wagon could scarcely get out of it's own way at the best of times.).


I did something similar. I went from 5W-30 to 5W-50 in my Ford 2.0L Zetec. It took a noticeable mileage penalty and the car felt sluggish. After a couple of years I went back to 5W-30 and got my mileage back and the engine was much peppier again. Maybe smaller engines react more so to thicker oils than say V-8's.

Whimsey
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top