2012 Honda Accord V6 M1 0w20 5,000 miles

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 16, 2003
Messages
3,690
Location
Colorado
Here is the latest on my V6 Accord using Mobil 1 0w20 OEM filters and 5,000 miles on oil. Not a drop of oil has burned in the VCM engine. First number from the left was the factory fill with 8,396 then 5,000 miles on M1 and again 5,000 on M1. 20,000 total miles on engine. Blackstone is the lab:

ALUMINUM 16, 5, 4
CHROMIUM 1, 0, 0
IRON 39, 11, 9
COPPER 160, 28, 22
LEAD 3, 0, 1
TIN 0, 0, 0
MOLYBDENUM 388, 91, 78
NICKEL 1, 0, 0
MANGANESE 9, 1, 1
SILVER 0, 0, 0
TITANIUM 0, 0, 0
POTASSIUM 7, 0, 1
BORON 144, 65, 50
SILICON 94, 14, 11
SODIUM 13, 0, 4
CALCIUM 1741, 1123, 1062
MAGNESIUM 68, 774, 726
PHOSPHORUS 654, 634, 574
ZINC 787, 686, 618
BARIUM 1, 0, 0

SUS Viscosity @ 210 F 47.9, 48.4, 49.2
cSt viscosity @ 100 C 6.64, 6.79, 7.03
Flashpoint 380 F, 395, 375
Fuel Antifreeze 0, 0, 0
Water 0, 0, 0
Insolubles 0.3, 0.3, 0.4
 
Originally Posted By: Zaedock
Nice report, but why would you run Mobil 1 to only 5K? Any conventional could do the same thing.


The Honda V6 VCM is known to be very hard on oil and following the MM is considered to be bad advice. Plus 5k is a safe OCI for this engine easy to remember and oil is very cheap!
 
Running a nice syn like Mobil 1 to 5,000 miles is "A" choice, but not a good choice, IMO. If you're going to test anyway, add TBN to your report and you'll likely see you can go further.
 
Originally Posted By: Zaedock
Nice report, but why would you run Mobil 1 to only 5K? Any conventional could do the same thing.


Find me a conventional 0w20, That's the weight the OM calls for.

With the potential sludge issues with the VCM V6, I'm inclined to agree with the OP's 5,000 mi OCI choice.

Interesting to see how much M1 0w20 has sheared in your engine. It does about the same in my R18 Civic. The PDS indicates it's an 8.7 cSt oil with a 2.7 HTHS, but the UOAs say otherwise. Looking at the PDSs you'd think there was little reason to choose M1 5w20 over the 0w20, but the 5w20's greater shear stability means that in practice it's actually quite different from the 0w20. PU 5w20 is even more shear stable.

Good thing Hondas don't mind thin oil. Thanks for sharing!
 
So do you guys think the Pennzoil Ultra 0w20 would be a better choice? I can get it at my local Wal-Mart for the same price as M1 0w20.I'm thinking it would make any difference over the life of the car. What do you think?
 
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
So do you guys think the Pennzoil Ultra 0w20 would be a better choice? I can get it at my local Wal-Mart for the same price as M1 0w20.I'm thinking it would make any difference over the life of the car. What do you think?



Do you mean PU 5w20? PU doesn't come in 0w20, but PP does. I would probably rather have the M1 0w20 over PP 0w20.
 
I think "better" needs to be defined by you ChrisB. ...

"Better" in a sense that something makes you sleep well at night? Only you can decide that.

"Better" for your engine? Well - that is easy to find. Run several trials (min 3 per choice) with several lubes and see how they stack up against UA macro data; see my "normalcy" article.

"Better" for your wallet? That will be the lube that provides statistically sound wear data, for the least cost.

I cannot tell you where your mind is at for "feeling" your way in this decision; that is completely up to you and an emotional reaction to "wants" (desires). But I can tell you that any syn for 5k miles is a total waste of money, and not providing any significant benefit over a decent conventional lube. Data and facts trump rhetoric and mythology every time.
 
Last edited:
Oil is cheap so "better" in terms of wear protection. Normally I agree that 5,000 on full Syn is a waste of money but not on the VCM V6. It is well documented that this engine is very hard on oil and it degrades fast.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
So do you guys think the Pennzoil Ultra 0w20 would be a better choice? I can get it at my local Wal-Mart for the same price as M1 0w20.I'm thinking it would make any difference over the life of the car. What do you think?



Do you mean PU 5w20? PU doesn't come in 0w20, but PP does. I would probably rather have the M1 0w20 over PP 0w20.


I swear I saw 0w20 PU at my local store. I'll double check next trip back this week.
 
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
So do you guys think the Pennzoil Ultra 0w20 would be a better choice? I can get it at my local Wal-Mart for the same price as M1 0w20.I'm thinking it would make any difference over the life of the car. What do you think?



Do you mean PU 5w20? PU doesn't come in 0w20, but PP does. I would probably rather have the M1 0w20 over PP 0w20.


I swear I saw 0w20 PU at my local store. I'll double check next trip back this week.


It's possible, but I doubt it. Shell is revamping their product line and possibly combining the Platinum and Ultra products into "Ultra Platinum" or some such, so it's theoretically possible that you have a store that put the new product on the shelves before Shell announced it. Again, I highly doubt it.

Platinum 0w20 is about halfway between the other Platinum oils and Ultra though. It's the only Platinum grade with it's own unique PDS and it has an 8.9% NOACK volatility, about halfway between the Platinum 5w20 and Ultra 5w20.

There's nothing on paper that would lead one to believe PP 0w20 is better than M1 0w20, your UOA doesn't show any elevated wear metals or other reason to switch either. The engine will likely outlast the seats and the bodywork on either oil. The only advice I would give you is don't switch frequently between them.
 
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
Oil is cheap so "better" in terms of wear protection. Normally I agree that 5,000 on full Syn is a waste of money but not on the VCM V6. It is well documented that this engine is very hard on oil and it degrades fast.



Ah, yes, the old "cheap insurance" defense. Well known in the BITOG Court of Lubes ...


Please show me the "well documented" evidence that proves you need syn. So the engine may be "hard" on oil; so what? How does that translate into actual wear and ROI? Show me data that undeniably details how, in 5k miles, there is a statistical difference in wear outside "normal" sigma deviation between your choice of lube and a decent conventional oil.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
Oil is cheap so "better" in terms of wear protection. Normally I agree that 5,000 on full Syn is a waste of money but not on the VCM V6. It is well documented that this engine is very hard on oil and it degrades fast.



Ah, yes, the old "cheap insurance" defense. Well known in the BITOG Court of Lubes ...


Please show me the "well documented" evidence that proves you need syn. So the engine may be "hard" on oil; so what? How does that translate into actual wear and ROI? Show me data that undeniably details how, in 5k miles, there is a statistical difference in wear outside "normal" sigma deviation between your choice of lube and a decent conventional oil.


Spend any time on Honda Forums and the Folks following the MM using conventional oil are having problems. It is all over the place with pictures and UOA's showing trashed oil and engines. The VCM feature is what is being blamed for this. I barley had time to post my UOA so since you're from Missouri you can go search for it yourself. I'll spend a whopping $22 two or three times a year on full syn and keep my $30,000 car well protected.
 
On the f150online forums, labnerd has been reporting some ecoboost engines are "destroying" oil at 3000 miles. Some are not and some are. Apparently the OLM is not being helpful. Based on the data he is seeing, he recommended 5000 mile oci's and UOAs for everyone to see what their individual engine is doing.

It also appears that Ford requests back some engines that were replaced in warranty claims so that they can dismantle and investigate themselves.

If the Honda design is flawed, some of the owners who follow manufacturer ocis will soon have major warranty work and Honda should sit up and take notice.
 
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Chris B.
Oil is cheap so "better" in terms of wear protection. Normally I agree that 5,000 on full Syn is a waste of money but not on the VCM V6. It is well documented that this engine is very hard on oil and it degrades fast.



Ah, yes, the old "cheap insurance" defense. Well known in the BITOG Court of Lubes ...


Please show me the "well documented" evidence that proves you need syn. So the engine may be "hard" on oil; so what? How does that translate into actual wear and ROI? Show me data that undeniably details how, in 5k miles, there is a statistical difference in wear outside "normal" sigma deviation between your choice of lube and a decent conventional oil.


Spend any time on Honda Forums and the Folks following the MM using conventional oil are having problems. It is all over the place with pictures and UOA's showing trashed oil and engines. The VCM feature is what is being blamed for this. I barley had time to post my UOA so since you're from Missouri you can go search for it yourself. I'll spend a whopping $22 two or three times a year on full syn and keep my $30,000 car well protected.



Directing me to other websites, also full of mythology and rhetoric, isnt' exactly the "proof" I was seeking. I still wait for true documented evidence and not scare tatics resounded by other uninformed folks. Maybe it's good enough for you, but I set a higher standard for my level of "proof". I would agree there are things that are "well documented" on those sites. Unfortunately it's not hard data with objective review, but rather subjective conjecture and regurgitation of opinion.

I see nothing in UOA data to indicate your selection of lube did anything outstanding. Macro analysis leads to the conclusion, even for your specific engine family, that syns at 5k miles don't pay for themselves. Read my "normalcy" article. Then show me, with real tangible data including your own UOAs, where your point of ROI is at, please. Can you please tell me the five top markers of wear, what the averages are for those criteria, what sigma deviation is exhibited by those criteria, and what condemation levels you have set for those markers, relative to your specific engine family, and how your specific engine compares/contrasts to those parameters?

Maybe you're right; maybe you "need" syns at 5k miles. But I have yet to see real world proof of such claim. You have done ZERO to prove it, other than make wide-ranging claims and point to other hysterical folks who substantiate your own personal viewpoint.


BTW - What makes you think I'm in MO? I live near Indy ... not that it matters ...
 
Originally Posted By: Chris B.

Spend any time on Honda Forums and the Folks following the MM using conventional oil are having problems. It is all over the place with pictures and UOA's showing trashed oil and engines. The VCM feature is what is being blamed for this. I barley had time to post my UOA so since you're from Missouri you can go search for it yourself. I'll spend a whopping $22 two or three times a year on full syn and keep my $30,000 car well protected.


A Ford tech friend of mine was telling me that some of the F-Series trucks are having issues, and he's advising people to ignore the MM and follow a severe service interval. I never had much faith in MM's, and took a lot of flack for saying it here. Now we have Honda having problems with it, Ford having problems with it, and GM had some problems too and had to re-calibrate it. Vehicles are an expensive investment. Imagine the poor guy that puts faith in his F-150 Ecoboost pick up's MM. He does a lot of stop and go driving and finds out just after warranty that his OCI's were too long, no thanks for me.
27.gif


While some of them are OK, blanket statements like MM's are great across the board is just wrong. A few UOA's to confirm its accuracy would be a sound investment, and a visual inspection of the valve train at 25K miles would be a good idea too, if possible and economically feasible. Opinions vary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top