Can 0w20 handle high RPMs

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by dave1251
Your funny. 0W20 would not be used in a race engine other than qualifying.


Thought I read that NASCARs use 20 weight these days. The key is using crazy effective oil coolers so the oil doesnt thin out too much. Also realize that MOFT increases with RPM, so a race engine revving near redline all day long could run 20 weight if the oil is kept cool enough.


I believe NASCAR only uses them for qualifying. Fuel dilution and other factors result in a heavier lubricant used for the main event.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
^^^ Your statement was that race engines would not use 20 weight except for qualifying. But they do use 20 weight for racing (not just qualifying), and can because of crazy effective oil coolers to keep the oil from thinning to a dangerous level, or in drag cars because they run for only 5~6 seconds down the strip.


And during the race is the oil tempature at 425F for minutes at a time. Also read the entire reply thread before posting it helps a lot. You would be less confused although the last statement is an assumption.

 

[marc1]

Originally Posted by Hootbro
In Australia, the 2GR-FKS (3.5L) Toyota engine in the Highland/Kluger allows anywhere from 0W-20 to 15w40 so long as outside temp considerations are taken in. The 0W-20 and 5W-20 only in the USA market is obviously a CAFE only consideration and not a sole engineering one.

Thanks for this actual info. I have heard people suggest the owner's manual in non-North American sales zones explicitly states alternate viscosity choices but this is the first time I have actually seen it for real and I appreciate it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by marc1
Originally Posted by Hootbro
In Australia, the 2GR-FKS (3.5L) Toyota engine in the Highland/Kluger allows anywhere from 0W-20 to 15w40 so long as outside temp considerations are taken in. The 0W-20 and 5W-20 only in the USA market is obviously a CAFE only consideration and not a sole engineering one.

Thanks for this actual info. I have heard people suggest the owner's manual in non-North American sales zones explicitly states alternate viscosity choices but this is the first time I have actually seen it for real and I appreciate it.


There was a thread a while back where all kinds of owner's manual from other countries (no CAFE) of the oil spec pages (for same US models) were posted, looking similar to the above.

 

[ekpolk]

Of course, the fact that the manual from other countries permits the use of other grades of oil does not imply, let alone prove, that any other particular grade provides "better" lubrication, however one may attempt to define "better."

I understand the fear and concern that existed over twenty years ago when 20wt oils (then almost exclusively 5w-20) were first specified by car manufacturers. I was concerned myself. But we now have over twenty years of experience with wide-spread use of 5w-20 and 0w-20 oils, and as I've noted before, we just are not seeing the sort of failures one would expect if these oils were, in fact, providing less protection than 30, 40 or 50 weight oils. The junkyards are NOT jam packed with cars whose engines died early because their owners and maintainers used 20 wt oil in them.

Again, if the either 5w-20 or 0w-20 are not up to the tasks for which they are allowed or specified, where are all the vehicles ruined by them over the last twenty years???

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
.............................

Again, if the either 5w-20 or 0w-20 are not up to the tasks for which they are allowed or specified, where are all the vehicles ruined by them over the last twenty years???


Guess you never owned a Ford 5.4 Triton. Even the FCA 5.7 Hemi's have less problems when users go to 5w30. While only two examples, I am sure there is more and am not painting with a broad brush against 20 weights in generally, but 20 weight oils are not all encompassing in every application.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

The ford V-10's as well. And the original ecoboost recommendation was 5w20 but went back to 5w30.

The emasculated mustangs that put the vehicles specifying 20wts into limp mode when driven hard and the oil temp goes up. While the higher trim levels recomend a higher viscosity and do not have the protection "feature".

Not saying that 20 wt are not adequate for the majority of American use. But when used in heavy duty applications or high speed applications, Ford is showing what they think is needed.

Originally Posted by Hootbro
Originally Posted by ekpolk
.............................

Again, if the either 5w-20 or 0w-20 are not up to the tasks for which they are allowed or specified, where are all the vehicles ruined by them over the last twenty years???


Guess you never owned a Ford 5.4 Triton. Even the FCA 5.7 Hemi's have less problems when users go to 5w30. While on two examples, I am sure there is more and am not painting with a broad brush against 20 weights in generally, but 20 weight oils are not all encompassing in every application.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by Hootbro

Guess you never owned a Ford 5.4 Triton. Even the FCA 5.7 Hemi's have less problems when users go to 5w30. While only two examples, I am sure there is more and am not painting with a broad brush against 20 weights in generally, but 20 weight oils are not all encompassing in every application.


I never owned any of those vehicles, but I have driven a 5.4 Ford, but all that's beside the point.

I didn't say or imply that that 20 wt oils are "all encompassing in every application" or anything close to that. I'm responding to the on-going generalized dark fear, rarely specifically founded, even to this day, to that somehow, in general, 20 wt oils provide lesser performance than other, heavier oil grades. Another poster recently suggested that I go ahead and switch to a 30 wt oil now and start getting better protection... Based upon what???

Clearly, in a perfect world (where's that...), the engineers could work out exactly what oil grade is "the best" for each particular engine under a given set of circumstances. Of course, that's hopelessly impractical. So taking into account mechanical, financial -- and regulatory -- facts, they recommend or specify an oil, or range of oils.

And then, they learn from what happens and adjust. Examples? One design, the cited original EcoBoost gets modified from 20 wt to a 30. Other designs, any number of Toyota V-6s, originally calling for a 30 wt go the other way, and end up spec-ing a 20. None of this establishes that one oil grade is to be feared whereas another isn't. Isn't it really more about the particular engine, rather than the oil grade in isolation from all else?

None of these specific changes, in either direction, allow generalized conclusions about one oil grade or another. Another rhetorical question: has Ford, Honda, Toyota or any other car maker done a complete about face, and said, in effect, "we were wrong, everyone stop using 20wt oil, we're not recommending its use any more...?"

 

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted by ekpolk


I never owned any of those vehicles, but I have driven a 5.4 Ford, but all that's beside the point.

I didn't say or imply that that 20 wt oils are "all encompassing in every application" or anything close to that. I'm responding to the on-going generalized dark fear, rarely specifically founded, even to this day, to that somehow, in general, 20 wt oils provide lesser performance than other, heavier oil grades. Another poster recently suggested that I go ahead and switch to a 30 wt oil now and start getting better protection... Based upon what???

Clearly, in a perfect world (where's that...), the engineers could work out exactly what oil grade is "the best" for each particular engine under a given set of circumstances. Of course, that's hopelessly impractical. So taking into account mechanical, financial -- and regulatory -- facts, they recommend or specify an oil, or range of oils.

And then, they learn from what happens and adjust. Examples? One design, the cited original EcoBoost gets modified from 20 wt to a 30. Other designs, any number of Toyota V-6s, originally calling for a 30 wt go the other way, and end up spec-ing a 20. None of this establishes that one oil grade is to be feared whereas another isn't. Isn't it really more about the particular engine, rather than the oil grade in isolation from all else?

None of these specific changes, in either direction, allow generalized conclusions about one oil grade or another. Another rhetorical question: has Ford, Honda, Toyota or any other car maker done a complete about face, and said, in effect, "we were wrong, everyone stop using 20wt oil, we're not recommending its use any more...?"


Your written prose is interesting.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Another poster recently suggested that I go ahead and switch to a 30 wt oil now and start getting better protection... Based upon what???


He's right, based on the many posted up technical papers showing how increased viscosity inreases MOFT and typically the increased HTHS along with it, thereby decreasing wear to a certain degree.

There's a difference between better protection and adequate protection. 20 wt might be adequate for most benignly driven cars (and obviously not adequate in some cases for the benign), but it's not as good at protecting than a thicker oil, even in benign use cases.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

To me thin oil is like wearing a seat belt rated for 60mph crashes. It is probably adequate for most traffic accidents. But with your life on the line is adequate for most situations good enough? Or would you prefer a little more protection?

You see how escalating the consequence on a risk matrix makes things become clear?

 

[PimTac]

A continuation of last weeks T vs T thread.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
To me thin oil is like wearing a seat belt rated for 60mph crashes. It is probably adequate for most traffic accidents. But with your life on the line is adequate for most situations good enough? Or would you prefer a little more protection?

You see how escalating the consequence on a risk matrix makes things become clear?

Only if you worry about your cooling system failing. These days we can use regular unleaded in cars that will advance the timing as needed, even if they can take advantage of high octane rated fuel. We rely on the knock sensors and engine management to keep the engine from destroying itself, and I haven't really heard of many modern engines doing that. I mean - I remember arguing heavily with someone about how trustworthy knock sensors were. And if a cooling system fails, it's quickly apparent. I've been there such as a coolant hose blowing or a radiator fan malfunctioning in bumper to bumper traffic.

About the only case I remember where there was a serious problem with 5W-20 was with Honda's variable cylinder management issues in their V-6 engines. However, that wasn't necessarily the oil weight, but excessive cycling of the VCM system. I've heard that those who used Mobil 1 or similar 5W-20/0W-20 oils didn't seem to have that same problem.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by PimTac
A continuation of last weeks T vs T thread.


Gotta have T vs T talk ... wouldn't be an oil board without it.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Just admit the lower barrier to wear risk is worth the potential mpg tradeoff. Risk/reward most new vehicle owners don't keep them until the end. They will never see a consequence to following the recommendation. In fact the failure rate is so low that the manufacturer embraces the risk. What this means is the probability side of the consequences probability equation is adequately low. If I wasn't ocd towards optimization.. that would be that. I really don't think there is a wrong answer just measures of optimization- fuel economy-vs- unseen longevity to most owners.
Originally Posted by y_p_w
Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
To me thin oil is like wearing a seat belt rated for 60mph crashes. It is probably adequate for most traffic accidents. But with your life on the line is adequate for most situations good enough? Or would you prefer a little more protection?

You see how escalating the consequence on a risk matrix makes things become clear?

Only if you worry about your cooling system failing. These days we can use regular unleaded in cars that will advance the timing as needed, even if they can take advantage of high octane rated fuel. We rely on the knock sensors and engine management to keep the engine from destroying itself, and I haven't really heard of many modern engines doing that. I mean - I remember arguing heavily with someone about how trustworthy knock sensors were. And if a cooling system fails, it's quickly apparent. I've been there such as a coolant hose blowing or a radiator fan malfunctioning in bumper to bumper traffic.

About the only case I remember where there was a serious problem with 5W-20 was with Honda's variable cylinder management issues in their V-6 engines. However, that wasn't necessarily the oil weight, but excessive cycling of the VCM system. I've heard that those who used Mobil 1 or similar 5W-20/0W-20 oils didn't seem to have that same problem.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
Just admit the lower barrier to wear risk is worth the potential mpg tradeoff. Risk/reward most new vehicle owners don't keep them until the end. They will never see a consequence to following the recommendation. In fact the failure rate is so low that the manufacturer embraces the risk. What this means is the probability side of the consequences probability equation is adequately low.


That's what I don't get...the refusal to accept that the manufacturers are making these compromises, the strawman (pile of failed engines), and the defensive posturing as 'though to admit it would emasculate them as vehicle owners.

It's done for one reason, and one reason only...and the result is entirely satisfactory for the anticipated lifetime of the vehicle.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

It is a straight forward association. Wear protection cost mpg, and mpg cost some wear protection.
Originally Posted by Shannow

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
Just admit the lower barrier to wear risk is worth the potential mpg tradeoff. Risk/reward most new vehicle owners don't keep them until the end. They will never see a consequence to following the recommendation. In fact the failure rate is so low that the manufacturer embraces the risk. What this means is the probability side of the consequences probability equation is adequately low.


That's what I don't get...the refusal to accept that the manufacturers are making these compromises, the strawman (pile of failed engines), and the defensive posturing as 'though to admit it would emasculate them as vehicle owners.

It's done for one reason, and one reason only...and the result is entirely satisfactory for the anticipated lifetime of the vehicle.

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
It is a straight forward association. Wear protection cost mpg, and mpg cost some wear protection.
Originally Posted by Shannow

Originally Posted by Bryanccfshr
Just admit the lower barrier to wear risk is worth the potential mpg tradeoff. Risk/reward most new vehicle owners don't keep them until the end. They will never see a consequence to following the recommendation. In fact the failure rate is so low that the manufacturer embraces the risk. What this means is the probability side of the consequences probability equation is adequately low.


That's what I don't get...the refusal to accept that the manufacturers are making these compromises, the strawman (pile of failed engines), and the defensive posturing as 'though to admit it would emasculate them as vehicle owners.

It's done for one reason, and one reason only...and the result is entirely satisfactory for the anticipated lifetime of the vehicle.


With the hundreds of thousands of miles using 0-20, I haven't seen any loss of engine life due to wear. I just don't buy your opinion.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Of course, the fact that the manual from other countries permits the use of other grades of oil does not imply, let alone prove, that any other particular grade provides "better" lubrication, however one may attempt to define "better."

I understand the fear and concern that existed over twenty years ago when 20wt oils (then almost exclusively 5w-20) were first specified by car manufacturers. I was concerned myself. But we now have over twenty years of experience with wide-spread use of 5w-20 and 0w-20 oils, and as I've noted before, we just are not seeing the sort of failures one would expect if these oils were, in fact, providing less protection than 30, 40 or 50 weight oils. The junkyards are NOT jam packed with cars whose engines died early because their owners and maintainers used 20 wt oil in them.

Again, if the either 5w-20 or 0w-20 are not up to the tasks for which they are allowed or specified, where are all the vehicles ruined by them over the last twenty years???

I remember back when they first came out with the 5W-20 recommendation there was a certain amount of skepticism about whether they would work long term. My wife is the original owner of a 2002 Honda Civic LX that's seen nothing except "conventional" 5W-20 all its 85,000 miles, and even then some of the oil change periods may have been spotty before (and after) I started taking care of it.

Still - back then I remember there was talk that maybe using Mobil 1 0W-20 or Honda Genuine 0W-20 (then made by Mobil) might be a more robust choice. I believe it specifically listed Honda's specification that applied to their 5W-20 recommendation. The only factory recommended application for 0W-20 at the time was for the original Honda Insight.

The first time I'd ever heard of 0W-20 was when discussing synthetic oils with the manager of an auto parts store who was also a weekend racing mechanic. He said that Pennzoil reps were coming to him asking if he was interested in their 0W-20 for drag racing.

However, I think it's worth discussing that 0W-20 is a considerably different beast than common 5W-20, although it's possible to use oils like Pennzoil Platinum or Mobil 1 5W-20. I looked at a few Toyota owners manuals, and saw a few where 0W-20 or 5W-20 was recommended. However, they change it from 10,000 to 5000 mile change intervals "If 0W-20 oil WAS NOT used at the last oil change". The following shows an initial 10,000 miles change for the factory 0W-20 fill, but puts in changes at 15,000/25,000/etc if something else is used. The owner's manual only specifies 0W-20 or 5W-20 for the 2.4L engine, and just 0W-20 (with a caveat for emergency use of 5W-20) for the 1.8L.

https://www.toyota.com/t3Portal/document/omms-s/T-MMS-12Corolla/pdf/2012_Toyota_Corolla_WMG.pdf
https://www.toyota.com/t3Portal/document/om-s/OM12F48U/pdf/OM12F48U.pdf

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Another poster recently suggested that I go ahead and switch to a 30 wt oil now and start getting better protection... Based upon what???


He's right, based on the many posted up technical papers showing how increased viscosity inreases MOFT and typically the increased HTHS along with it, thereby decreasing wear to a certain degree.

There's a difference between better protection and adequate protection. 20 wt might be adequate for most benignly driven cars (and obviously not adequate in some cases for the benign), but it's not as good at protecting than a thicker oil, even in benign use cases.


No, he's not. You just can't assume that in every application, the engine will, or even can reach the point at which the oil film will compromise. And even if you did, then you'd have to look at how the other components of the oil, in that engine, protect when the film thickness is compromised. You say, "[t]here's a difference between better protection and adequate protection." Are you not assuming that in every case, the engine can and will pass the point of substantially compromised film thickness? How is that a supportable assumption? The computer controlling 1NZ-FXE (the 1.5L from my old Gen-2 Prius) held the maximum rpm to a pretty low 5000 (I have a ScanGauge-II compensating for the car's lack of a tach). The new 18 Prius has the slightly larger 1.8L 2ZR engine, and it appears to be limited to 5500 rpm. Those would hardly seem to be "banshee screaming" high-stress situations that might overstress the oil film. Or that would lead me to ignore what the OM says and substitute the opinions of my friends on BITOG.

And this brings me back to the question I've posed several times, and none of the "thicker is better" advocates have answered: "where are all the vehicles ruined by 20wt oils in the twenty-plus years that car makers have been specifying them?" Again, not the individual special cases, but the overall mass of cars that certainly would have accumulated by now, were the 20s not up to the task. There would be a mixed mass of failures, Accords, Tauruses, Camrys, Civics, all "dying" in mass as they all were damaged over the years by "inferior" 20wt oil. This just hasn't happened.