Back Spec oil weights.

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
IIRC CAFE only matters for the current model year. As it is on average sold, I guess the definition of that would be most recent full model year?


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2658661/Re:_CAFE_has_Little_to_do_with#Post2658661

Quote:
What are CAFE credits?

Manufacturers can earn CAFE “credits” to offset deficiencies in their CAFE performances. Specifically, when the average fuel economy of either the passenger car or light truck fleet for a particular model year exceeds the established standard, the manufacturer earns credits. The amount of credit a manufacturer earns is determined by multiplying the tenths of a mile per gallon that the manufacturer exceeded the CAFE standard in that model year by the amount of vehicles they manufactured in that model year. These credits can be applied to any three consecutive model years immediately prior to or subsequent to the model year in which the credits are earned. The credits earned and applied to the model years prior to the model year for which the credits are earned are termed “carry back” credits, while those applied to model years subsequent to the model year in which the credits are earned are known as “carry forward” credits. Failure to exercise carry forward credits within the three years immediately following the year in which they are earned will result in the forfeiture of those credits. Credits cannot be passed between manufacturers or between fleets, e.g., from domestic passenger cars to light trucks.


So yes, they can get credit for backspeccing...

Nice try 'though tig1...


Thanks for posting that. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. Back spec from a 30 grade to a 20 grade to collect credits. Change the spec from a 20 grade to a 30 grade to fix a problem. I'm sticking with a 30 grade.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
And I have noticed the same with 20 wt oils. I noticed that in 1978 when I switched from 10-40 dino to M1 5-20 in a Slant 6 Dodge pickup engine.


again, the original mobil 1 5W20 was monograde, no VIIs, and therefore in modern parlance, would have an HTHS in the 2.9 to 3 range, just like Redline currently does.

The dino 10W40s of the day were renowned for not living up to their "grade" when it came to protection, and thus began the research into HTHS...at which point the xW40s (0W, 5W, 10W) were given a 2.9Cp minimum limit.

So YES, in 1978, M1 5w20 offered the same performance level (well heaps better, it didn't turn into rubber in the desert) than a 10W40 dino of the day.

Your M1 in 1978 wasn't an ILSAC 20 like now, it was more like Redline...wheich many of you call "really a 30" (but it's not).

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Y_K
You've put 400k on 0-20 oil on a single engine?

No, on my 2007 Fusion as listed, and my 2007 Focus that was totaled this summer that had 175K, and now my 2017 Fusion which I have put 7K with 0-20 that I purchased in early June.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
And I have noticed the same with 20 wt oils. I noticed that in 1978 when I switched from 10-40 dino to M1 5-20 in a Slant 6 Dodge pickup engine.


again, the original mobil 1 5W20 was monograde, no VIIs, and therefore in modern parlance, would have an HTHS in the 2.9 to 3 range, just like Redline currently does.

The dino 10W40s of the day were renowned for not living up to their "grade" when it came to protection, and thus began the research into HTHS...at which point the xW40s (0W, 5W, 10W) were given a 2.9Cp minimum limit.

So YES, in 1978, M1 5w20 offered the same performance level (well heaps better, it didn't turn into rubber in the desert) than a 10W40 dino of the day.

Your M1 in 1978 wasn't an ILSAC 20 like now, it was more like Redline...wheich many of you call "really a 30" (but it's not).



But the 5-20 I used in 1978 had all the characteristics of today's M1 0-20. Far superior to 10-40 dino of that era. Nice try.

 

[Danh]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
IIRC CAFE only matters for the current model year. As it is on average sold, I guess the definition of that would be most recent full model year?


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2658661/Re:_CAFE_has_Little_to_do_with#Post2658661

Quote:
What are CAFE credits?

Manufacturers can earn CAFE “credits” to offset deficiencies in their CAFE performances. Specifically, when the average fuel economy of either the passenger car or light truck fleet for a particular model year exceeds the established standard, the manufacturer earns credits. The amount of credit a manufacturer earns is determined by multiplying the tenths of a mile per gallon that the manufacturer exceeded the CAFE standard in that model year by the amount of vehicles they manufactured in that model year. These credits can be applied to any three consecutive model years immediately prior to or subsequent to the model year in which the credits are earned. The credits earned and applied to the model years prior to the model year for which the credits are earned are termed “carry back” credits, while those applied to model years subsequent to the model year in which the credits are earned are known as “carry forward” credits. Failure to exercise carry forward credits within the three years immediately following the year in which they are earned will result in the forfeiture of those credits. Credits cannot be passed between manufacturers or between fleets, e.g., from domestic passenger cars to light trucks.


So yes, they can get credit for backspeccing...

Nice try 'though tig1...


This discussion started with Honda and Toyota back-spec'ing a lower viscosity. I doubt this was done by them to use credits:

1) I doubt they had CAFE penalties in the 3 years prior to the back-spec
2) Just by specifying a lower weight oil in the current model year they would have been able to carry back 3 years without back-spec'ing
3) Many of the model years to which the back--spec applied were more than 3 years old, making the whole CAFE credit discussion moot.

The more-likely answer in the Honda/Toyota case is that it makes the dealers' lives simpler in that they only have to stock a single grade of bulk oil.

 

[ndfergy]

Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
IIRC CAFE only matters for the current model year. As it is on average sold, I guess the definition of that would be most recent full model year?


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2658661/Re:_CAFE_has_Little_to_do_with#Post2658661

Quote:
What are CAFE credits?

Manufacturers can earn CAFE “credits” to offset deficiencies in their CAFE performances. Specifically, when the average fuel economy of either the passenger car or light truck fleet for a particular model year exceeds the established standard, the manufacturer earns credits. The amount of credit a manufacturer earns is determined by multiplying the tenths of a mile per gallon that the manufacturer exceeded the CAFE standard in that model year by the amount of vehicles they manufactured in that model year. These credits can be applied to any three consecutive model years immediately prior to or subsequent to the model year in which the credits are earned. The credits earned and applied to the model years prior to the model year for which the credits are earned are termed “carry back” credits, while those applied to model years subsequent to the model year in which the credits are earned are known as “carry forward” credits. Failure to exercise carry forward credits within the three years immediately following the year in which they are earned will result in the forfeiture of those credits. Credits cannot be passed between manufacturers or between fleets, e.g., from domestic passenger cars to light trucks.


So yes, they can get credit for backspeccing...

Nice try 'though tig1...


This discussion started with Honda and Toyota back-spec'ing a lower viscosity. I doubt this was done by them to use credits:

1) I doubt they had CAFE penalties in the 3 years prior to the back-spec
2) Just by specifying a lower weight oil in the current model year they would have been able to carry back 3 years without back-spec'ing
3) Many of the model years to which the back--spec applied were more than 3 years old, making the whole CAFE credit discussion moot.

The more-likely answer in the Honda/Toyota case is that it makes the dealers' lives simpler in that they only have to stock a single grade of bulk oil.


After rereading the CAFE document Shannow provided I see there's a misinterpretation of carry back credits. To keep it simple, if you don't have enough banked/carry forward credits to offset a year you were in non-compliance, you have 3 years to make up that deficit with CAFE credits earned to apply to that shortfall - or carryback credits. The only monetary incentive if you're annually in compliance, as Toyota and Honda usually are, is to trade your credits to other manufacturers.

Therefore, I agree with you. Whether there's a bulk oil saving, as I suggested, is up for debate but seems plausible.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
And I have noticed the same with 20 wt oils. I noticed that in 1978 when I switched from 10-40 dino to M1 5-20 in a Slant 6 Dodge pickup engine.


again, the original mobil 1 5W20 was monograde, no VIIs, and therefore in modern parlance, would have an HTHS in the 2.9 to 3 range, just like Redline currently does.

The dino 10W40s of the day were renowned for not living up to their "grade" when it came to protection, and thus began the research into HTHS...at which point the xW40s (0W, 5W, 10W) were given a 2.9Cp minimum limit.

So YES, in 1978, M1 5w20 offered the same performance level (well heaps better, it didn't turn into rubber in the desert) than a 10W40 dino of the day.

Your M1 in 1978 wasn't an ILSAC 20 like now, it was more like Redline...wheich many of you call "really a 30" (but it's not).



But the 5-20 I used in 1978 had all the characteristics of today's M1 0-20. Far superior to 10-40 dino of that era. Nice try.


Sure, I mean the bottle color hasn't changed, after all.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: tig1
But the 5-20 I used in 1978 had all the characteristics of today's M1 0-20.

Which characteristics, though? I'm asking about quantifiable characteristics, not marketing quotes, either.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
But the 5-20 I used in 1978 had all the characteristics of today's M1 0-20.

Which characteristics, though? I'm asking about quantifiable characteristics, not marketing quotes, either.


What does quantifiable mean???

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
And I have noticed the same with 20 wt oils. I noticed that in 1978 when I switched from 10-40 dino to M1 5-20 in a Slant 6 Dodge pickup engine.


again, the original mobil 1 5W20 was monograde, no VIIs, and therefore in modern parlance, would have an HTHS in the 2.9 to 3 range, just like Redline currently does.

The dino 10W40s of the day were renowned for not living up to their "grade" when it came to protection, and thus began the research into HTHS...at which point the xW40s (0W, 5W, 10W) were given a 2.9Cp minimum limit.

So YES, in 1978, M1 5w20 offered the same performance level (well heaps better, it didn't turn into rubber in the desert) than a 10W40 dino of the day.

Your M1 in 1978 wasn't an ILSAC 20 like now, it was more like Redline...wheich many of you call "really a 30" (but it's not).



But the 5-20 I used in 1978 had all the characteristics of today's M1 0-20. Far superior to 10-40 dino of that era. Nice try.


Sure, I mean the bottle color hasn't changed, after all.


In 1978 M1 came in a steel round can, today it's in a....plastic bottle, I think.

 

[53' Stude]

It's in plastic quart yes TIG1

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: car51
It's in plastic quart yes TIG1


I'm not sure anymore!!

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
But the 5-20 I used in 1978 had all the characteristics of today's M1 0-20.

Which characteristics, though? I'm asking about quantifiable characteristics, not marketing quotes, either.


What does quantifiable mean???


Not a generic "had all of the characteristics of today's M1 0W-20"...some of the details that were the same.

e.g
1978 M1 was totally GrIV (carrier oil exclusive), while today's 0W20 has GrIII in it.
1978 M1 had no VII polymers according to data published at the time), while today's 0W20 has VII.
1978 M1 being essential a monograde would have had an HTHS around 2.9-3, while todays 0W20 is 2.6
1978 M1 predates a number of mobil patents for Mo, and VM chemicals, while the current 0W20 has Mo.
1978 M1 wasn't SN, nor did it have current levels of Phosphorous and sufated ash.

Clearly virtually identical products.

Unless you are saying that both oils have "viscosity", "pour point", "NOACK"...which all oils have

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
But the 5-20 I used in 1978 had all the characteristics of today's M1 0-20.

Which characteristics, though? I'm asking about quantifiable characteristics, not marketing quotes, either.


What does quantifiable mean???


Not a generic "had all of the characteristics of today's M1 0W-20"...some of the details that were the same.

e.g
1978 M1 was totally GrIV (carrier oil exclusive), while today's 0W20 has GrIII in it.
1978 M1 had no VII polymers according to data published at the time), while today's 0W20 has VII.
1978 M1 being essential a monograde would have had an HTHS around 2.9-3, while todays 0W20 is 2.6
1978 M1 predates a number of mobil patents for Mo, and VM chemicals, while the current 0W20 has Mo.
1978 M1 wasn't SN, nor did it have current levels of Phosphorous and sufated ash.

Clearly virtually identical products.

Unless you are saying that both oils have "viscosity", "pour point", "NOACK"...which all oils have


But what does quantifiable mean??

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
But what does quantifiable mean??

You stated that they have the same characteristics...

Quantifiiable means ascribing a number to them...i.e. a KV100 of 9.3 in 1978 is the same as 9.3 in 2017...quantifiable.

So what's your comparison of the actual characteristics that are the same (and they must be "all" the same per your claim)

 

[SilverFusion2010]

I think someone just molested your spleen TIG

 

[tig1]

Both are called M1

Both come in a container

Both are slippery

Both are sort of pricy

That's about it, Quantifiably. Now back to my question about back spec oil wts. There seems to be a difference of opinion among the experts.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: tig1
What does quantifiable mean???

As in we can put numbers to it, particularly ones that aren't refutable or used as marketing speak. I can list a few differences between M1 0w-20 today and the M1 5w-20 you used before. For one, one is a 0w-XX and the other is not. The HTHS was different between the two products. So, the 5w-20 you used in 1978 doesn't have all the characteristics that M1 0w-20 has today. There are two significant differences just based on viscometrics.

Both being slippery and being semi-pricey and in the same colour scheme jug doesn't cut it as quantifiable. It's no different than saying 10w-30 or 5w-30 back then has all the characteristics they do now, which is clearly not accurate.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with the product then or the product now. They're just not exactly comparable or interchangeable.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Both are called M1

Both come in a container

Both are slippery

Both are sort of pricy

That's about it, Quantifiably.


So really no different to a 1978 10W40, eh ?

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
What does quantifiable mean???

As in we can put numbers to it, particularly ones that aren't refutable or used as marketing speak. I can list a few differences between M1 0w-20 today and the M1 5w-20 you used before. For one, one is a 0w-XX and the other is not. The HTHS was different between the two products. So, the 5w-20 you used in 1978 doesn't have all the characteristics that M1 0w-20 has today. There are two significant differences just based on viscometrics.

Both being slippery and being semi-pricey and in the same colour scheme jug doesn't cut it as quantifiable. It's no different than saying 10w-30 or 5w-30 back then has all the characteristics they do now, which is clearly not accurate.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with the product then or the product now. They're just not exactly comparable or interchangeable.


Garak,
I'M JOKING WITH THIS GUY AS HE SEEMS TO ENJOY BELITTLING US COMMON FOLK!! Quantifiable is a word someone else brought into the discussion. Frankly, I could care less what it means. Like Quantum Physics. I'm in my mid 70's and don't give a hoot. What I mean by the same characteristic, is the same great performance I have had from actual experience the last 40 years. Experience is my teacher. 1978, fast forward to 2017, same engine performance in too many ways to re-hash. However thanks for introducing some common sense.