From Chevron site. I think they meant 'phrase' not 'phase'.
Does non "Engergy Conserving" engine oil hurt MPG?
- Thread starter BigDenCCMD
- Start date
- Status
I'll bet that 3W-30 oil is really good as far as srarting goes in the winter.
Getting reduced MPG from a non-energy conserving oil is a myth. When my engines hit 200k miles I immediately switch over to a thicker non EC oil and instantly get better mileage.
On a newer low-mileage engine this may not be the case, but a motor that's been around the block a few times might benfit greatly from some thicker oil.
On a newer low-mileage engine this may not be the case, but a motor that's been around the block a few times might benfit greatly from some thicker oil.
No difference for me with either GC or M1.
Mobil 1 has a 3w-30 grade? Is that something new? I didn't see it on their web site.
My 96 Cherokee 4.0 is getting 19 mpg from about 60/40 city/highway with Chevron 10W30 high mileage, not energy conserving, yet better gas mileage than earlier.
I've seen a slight, but noticeable mileage increase since switching to Rotella 5W-40 synth in my 1995 GMC Jimmy. General Motors only recommends 5w30 or 10w30, but I have experienced no negative effects in nearly 100,000 miles of use.
I've seen no data so I suspect the comments on this thread are suspect. I do beleive however; that the "energy conserving" star burst symbol results in maybe up to a few 0.1-0.3 mpg. I think it will be difficult to quantify in a daily driver as one brisk start among many will over shadow the results. We do know from many on this NG that heavy oil will cause less mpg and in some cases even poorer acceleration preformance. That's why I don't use GC or other heavy end non rated oils in my Subaru Non turbo.
To get the "Energy Conserving" label, the oil must meet the requirements of the Sequence VIB engine tests.
http://www.swri.edu/4org/d08/GasTests/VIBtest/default.htm
http://www.swri.edu/4org/d08/GasTests/VIBtest/default.htm
It must be very good when it comes to SR
The Valvoline Maxlife Syn I stocked up on from the AZ sales in FEB do not have the "Energy Conserving" label on it.
I have heard the GC 0-30 does not either, and a few have reported that they have seen decreased MPG's on this site and another forum when using GC.
What does an oil need to do to have have the "Energy Conserving" label?
Is non-EC oil better suited for older engines?
I use the ValMAxLifeSyn in a 144k mile old '96 Crown Vic 4.6.
My other vehicles get MC 5-20 and M1 10-30.
Thanks........
I have heard the GC 0-30 does not either, and a few have reported that they have seen decreased MPG's on this site and another forum when using GC.
What does an oil need to do to have have the "Energy Conserving" label?
Is non-EC oil better suited for older engines?
I use the ValMAxLifeSyn in a 144k mile old '96 Crown Vic 4.6.
My other vehicles get MC 5-20 and M1 10-30.
Thanks........
I doubt it would be so much that you would notice.
The EC oils are probably on the thin end of the viscosity chart.
The EC oils are probably on the thin end of the viscosity chart.
My wife's Escort wants 10w30 oil. My Camaro wants 5w30 oil. I run them both on M1 T&SUV which is 5W-40. Both run great.
Comprehensive testing on a Escort and Camaro...there's all the proof you need.
- Joined
- May 27, 2002
- Messages
- 653
The following by Eddie:
"We do know from many on this NG that heavy oil will cause less mpg and in some cases even poorer acceleration preformance."
That isn't really true. All we have are statements from those making a point. We also have statements from others who experience better MPGs with thicker oils. I, for one, experience better mileage with 5/10W-40 oils than with thinner ones. Personally, I'd never use a 0/5W-20 oil in my cars. I have no problem with others who prefer it that thin, but I'm not going that route. I gain my fuel economy by using cars that get great MPG from the start. That leaves me free to go for the better wear protection oils.
I also get equal performance with the oils I now use. I don't know what's wrong with engines that get "bogged down" with 5/10W-40 oils but apparently some drivers feel that's the case with theirs. I know mine handle it excellently and I appreciate the the feeling of better protection. I'm not convinced that UOAs tell the whole story even though I do them.
To each his own.
"We do know from many on this NG that heavy oil will cause less mpg and in some cases even poorer acceleration preformance."
That isn't really true. All we have are statements from those making a point. We also have statements from others who experience better MPGs with thicker oils. I, for one, experience better mileage with 5/10W-40 oils than with thinner ones. Personally, I'd never use a 0/5W-20 oil in my cars. I have no problem with others who prefer it that thin, but I'm not going that route. I gain my fuel economy by using cars that get great MPG from the start. That leaves me free to go for the better wear protection oils.
I also get equal performance with the oils I now use. I don't know what's wrong with engines that get "bogged down" with 5/10W-40 oils but apparently some drivers feel that's the case with theirs. I know mine handle it excellently and I appreciate the the feeling of better protection. I'm not convinced that UOAs tell the whole story even though I do them.
To each his own.
The following mpg numbers are for a 1995 Ford Taurus 3.0 using 10w30 Mobile 1.
1/9/2005 82,134 173 9.8 17.6
1/16/2005 82,259 125 7.3 17.0
1/23/2005 82,400 141 7.5 18.7
1/31/2005 82,481 81 5.0 16.2
2/11/2005 82,679 198 10.6 18.7
2/23/2005 82,900 221 11.9 18.6
3/1/2005 83,030 130 7.6 17.1
3/9/2005 83,186 156 8.1 19.2
3/19/2005 83,375 189 8.8 21.4
4/6/2005 83,546 171 11.0 15.5
4/12/2005 83,785 239 11.8 20.3
4/15/2005 83,997 212 9.2 23.1
4/23/2005 84,270 273 13.4 20.4
4/29/2005 84,456 186 8.6 21.7
5/3/2005 84,678 222 9.5 23.4
5/11/2005 84,891 213 10.9 19.6
5/25/2005 85,115 224 11.7 19.1
5/30/2005 85,298 183 10.4 17.7
6/8/2005 85,543 245 12.5 19.6
6/14/2005 85,772 229 13.0 17.7
6/19/2005 85,888 116 5.3 21.9 AVG 19.3
MPG numbers for Mobile 1 T&SUV 5w40
6/23/2005 86,024 136 7.3 18.7
6/28/2005 86,174 150 7.7 19.6
7/2/2005 86,225 51 2.8 18.5
7/7/2005 86,419 194 9.1 21.3
7/14/2005 86,624 205 12.0 17.1
7/30/2005 86,869 245 12.8 19.1
8/3/2005 87,062 193 10.5 18.5
8/9/2005 87,300 238 12.0 19.8
AVG 19.1
Not a controlled experiment and not enough data to make a firm conclusion, but I saw about .2 mpg decrease. I sold the car to relatives in FL so the experiment is over
BTW According to the new owners the car averaged between 28 and 29 mpg on the trip to FL.
1/9/2005 82,134 173 9.8 17.6
1/16/2005 82,259 125 7.3 17.0
1/23/2005 82,400 141 7.5 18.7
1/31/2005 82,481 81 5.0 16.2
2/11/2005 82,679 198 10.6 18.7
2/23/2005 82,900 221 11.9 18.6
3/1/2005 83,030 130 7.6 17.1
3/9/2005 83,186 156 8.1 19.2
3/19/2005 83,375 189 8.8 21.4
4/6/2005 83,546 171 11.0 15.5
4/12/2005 83,785 239 11.8 20.3
4/15/2005 83,997 212 9.2 23.1
4/23/2005 84,270 273 13.4 20.4
4/29/2005 84,456 186 8.6 21.7
5/3/2005 84,678 222 9.5 23.4
5/11/2005 84,891 213 10.9 19.6
5/25/2005 85,115 224 11.7 19.1
5/30/2005 85,298 183 10.4 17.7
6/8/2005 85,543 245 12.5 19.6
6/14/2005 85,772 229 13.0 17.7
6/19/2005 85,888 116 5.3 21.9 AVG 19.3
MPG numbers for Mobile 1 T&SUV 5w40
6/23/2005 86,024 136 7.3 18.7
6/28/2005 86,174 150 7.7 19.6
7/2/2005 86,225 51 2.8 18.5
7/7/2005 86,419 194 9.1 21.3
7/14/2005 86,624 205 12.0 17.1
7/30/2005 86,869 245 12.8 19.1
8/3/2005 87,062 193 10.5 18.5
8/9/2005 87,300 238 12.0 19.8
AVG 19.1
Not a controlled experiment and not enough data to make a firm conclusion, but I saw about .2 mpg decrease. I sold the car to relatives in FL so the experiment is over
BTW According to the new owners the car averaged between 28 and 29 mpg on the trip to FL.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky