Originally Posted By: Ammofirst
What type of chevy is this ?
LOL
What type of chevy is this ?
LOL
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
New 2017 Honda CR-V Suggestions
- Thread starter ChevyMan93
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Danh
Honda's assembly lubes put a lot of molybdenum into the factory fill on initial start-up, which seems to be why Honda suggests leaving the oil in for a normal interval. The thinking seems to be that the molybdenum prevents hot spots from forming on cylinder walls as they conform to piston rings during break-in. These hot spots can cause oil to leave deposits that can't be removed without engine tear-down and result in a permanently compromised seal. Does it really matter? Who knows?
Prior to 2011, Honda was having a lot of "excessive oil consumption" complaints, particularly in their VCM engines. For the 2011 MY, they publicly announced engine "improvements" that included new oil control rings and piston skirts with embedded moly surfacing. These new engine modications were applied to all engines, 4 or 6 cyl. Dealers were instructed to strictly enforce a "no early oil change" edict so that the time released moly on the piston skirts could do their thing. FF UOAs started showing up with high moly content and so began the myth of the magical Honda factory fill.
The 2011 design changes apparently worked as oil consumption complaints died down. Nonetheless, Honda was the subject of a class action law suit pertaining to both 4 and 6 cyl vehicles with the original subject being excessive oil consumption. Honda's deep and talented legal team eventually got the complaint whittled down to VCM "misfires" pertaining to four specific CEL codes. In the settlement, Honda agreed to reimburse customers who has spent money at their dealers on these four specific codes and extend all VCM warranties to 8 years. In the meantime, many, many, faithful Honda customers got burned by Honda hardball tactics and swore off the brand. What exactly they are doing in 2017, I do not know and do not care.
Honda's assembly lubes put a lot of molybdenum into the factory fill on initial start-up, which seems to be why Honda suggests leaving the oil in for a normal interval. The thinking seems to be that the molybdenum prevents hot spots from forming on cylinder walls as they conform to piston rings during break-in. These hot spots can cause oil to leave deposits that can't be removed without engine tear-down and result in a permanently compromised seal. Does it really matter? Who knows?
Prior to 2011, Honda was having a lot of "excessive oil consumption" complaints, particularly in their VCM engines. For the 2011 MY, they publicly announced engine "improvements" that included new oil control rings and piston skirts with embedded moly surfacing. These new engine modications were applied to all engines, 4 or 6 cyl. Dealers were instructed to strictly enforce a "no early oil change" edict so that the time released moly on the piston skirts could do their thing. FF UOAs started showing up with high moly content and so began the myth of the magical Honda factory fill.
The 2011 design changes apparently worked as oil consumption complaints died down. Nonetheless, Honda was the subject of a class action law suit pertaining to both 4 and 6 cyl vehicles with the original subject being excessive oil consumption. Honda's deep and talented legal team eventually got the complaint whittled down to VCM "misfires" pertaining to four specific CEL codes. In the settlement, Honda agreed to reimburse customers who has spent money at their dealers on these four specific codes and extend all VCM warranties to 8 years. In the meantime, many, many, faithful Honda customers got burned by Honda hardball tactics and swore off the brand. What exactly they are doing in 2017, I do not know and do not care.
Originally Posted By: ChevyMan93
I realize that. But you can't tell that big of a difference in 0w-20 and 5w-30 in regards to the car being sluggish. It can't be THAT big of a difference.
I was just reviewing the specs on a new oil put out by Chevron. Let's take a look:
https://cglapps.chevron.com/msdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=486786&docFormat=PDF
Chevron, like most oil makers, publishes Kinematic Viscosity, cSt at 40°C and at 100°C. For 0W-20, the values reported are 45.0 and 8.4. For 5W-30, they are 72.3 and 11.8. The difference at 40C (closest to critical startup temps) is a 60% increase in viscosity. I would imagine you would notice that much more drag on your starter, particularly at colder temps. At 100C (typical operating temp), it's a 40% increase. Now you may not be able to discern this increase once the engine is running but do you think maybe your oil pump that was designed for 0W-20 might notice? The OEM engineers have chosen an oil viscosity as part of a design package. You cannot begin to imagine what other unintended consequences you may create through shade tree engineering a "better" oil viscosity for your engine.
I realize that. But you can't tell that big of a difference in 0w-20 and 5w-30 in regards to the car being sluggish. It can't be THAT big of a difference.
I was just reviewing the specs on a new oil put out by Chevron. Let's take a look:
https://cglapps.chevron.com/msdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=486786&docFormat=PDF
Chevron, like most oil makers, publishes Kinematic Viscosity, cSt at 40°C and at 100°C. For 0W-20, the values reported are 45.0 and 8.4. For 5W-30, they are 72.3 and 11.8. The difference at 40C (closest to critical startup temps) is a 60% increase in viscosity. I would imagine you would notice that much more drag on your starter, particularly at colder temps. At 100C (typical operating temp), it's a 40% increase. Now you may not be able to discern this increase once the engine is running but do you think maybe your oil pump that was designed for 0W-20 might notice? The OEM engineers have chosen an oil viscosity as part of a design package. You cannot begin to imagine what other unintended consequences you may create through shade tree engineering a "better" oil viscosity for your engine.
They don't change the engine design. They just spec thinner oil.
If you can offer evidence that the oil pump is different I would love to see it.
Thinner oils are for CAFE. That is why they were developed. That is why they exist. The oil companies have risen to the challenge and make many fine lubricants that are thin while protecting the engines.
If you're just puttering around a thin oil is fine. If you are going to track the car you'd better switch up a grade or two
If you can offer evidence that the oil pump is different I would love to see it.
Thinner oils are for CAFE. That is why they were developed. That is why they exist. The oil companies have risen to the challenge and make many fine lubricants that are thin while protecting the engines.
If you're just puttering around a thin oil is fine. If you are going to track the car you'd better switch up a grade or two
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Originally Posted By: ChevyMan93
I realize that. But you can't tell that big of a difference in 0w-20 and 5w-30 in regards to the car being sluggish. It can't be THAT big of a difference.
I was just reviewing the specs on a new oil put out by Chevron. Let's take a look:
https://cglapps.chevron.com/msdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=486786&docFormat=PDF
Chevron, like most oil makers, publishes Kinematic Viscosity, cSt at 40°C and at 100°C. For 0W-20, the values reported are 45.0 and 8.4. For 5W-30, they are 72.3 and 11.8. The difference at 40C (closest to critical startup temps) is a 60% increase in viscosity. I would imagine you would notice that much more drag on your starter, particularly at colder temps. At 100C (typical operating temp), it's a 40% increase. Now you may not be able to discern this increase once the engine is running but do you think maybe your oil pump that was designed for 0W-20 might notice? The OEM engineers have chosen an oil viscosity as part of a design package. You cannot begin to imagine what other unintended consequences you may create through shade tree engineering a "better" oil viscosity for your engine.
That presumes that the interests of OEMs and owners are perfectly aligned. They're not. OEMs want to meet CAFE requirements in the most economical way possible while retaining reasonable durability and reliability. Spec'ing a 20 weight oil is about the cheapest way to get there. Owners who value long-term durability over .2 mpg may choose differently.
While there are tons of examples of long-lived engines happily running on xxW-20, the fuel dilution that comes with DI/TGDI engines introduces a different dynamic that OEMs may not have fully come to grips with. Ford moved the spec on some EcoBoost engines from 5w-20 to 5w-30 because of fuel dilution with no engine modifications.
As a Honda owner, here's my perspective: Honda specs 0w-20 which has a 100C viscosity range of 6.9-9.2 cSt (or thereabouts). Most new 20 weights have viscosity of 8.2-9.1 at this temperature. Taking Honda's engineering as a given and knowing it's incapable of error, what am I to make of my 20 weight oil being fuel-diluted to 6.2 after a couple thousand miles? Seems to me I'm in violation of what Honda engineers planned and being too low is surely more dangerous than being too high.
As a 30 weight oil will dilute to a 20 weight quickly in most modern Hondas, using a 30 weight oil seems more closely aligned to Honda's viscosity wishes over the course of an OCI than 20 weight. WhIch is why I'll go to a 30 weight post-warranty. If I had a port-injected anything that spec'd 20 weight I wouldn't consider such a move.
Originally Posted By: ChevyMan93
I realize that. But you can't tell that big of a difference in 0w-20 and 5w-30 in regards to the car being sluggish. It can't be THAT big of a difference.
I was just reviewing the specs on a new oil put out by Chevron. Let's take a look:
https://cglapps.chevron.com/msdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=486786&docFormat=PDF
Chevron, like most oil makers, publishes Kinematic Viscosity, cSt at 40°C and at 100°C. For 0W-20, the values reported are 45.0 and 8.4. For 5W-30, they are 72.3 and 11.8. The difference at 40C (closest to critical startup temps) is a 60% increase in viscosity. I would imagine you would notice that much more drag on your starter, particularly at colder temps. At 100C (typical operating temp), it's a 40% increase. Now you may not be able to discern this increase once the engine is running but do you think maybe your oil pump that was designed for 0W-20 might notice? The OEM engineers have chosen an oil viscosity as part of a design package. You cannot begin to imagine what other unintended consequences you may create through shade tree engineering a "better" oil viscosity for your engine.
That presumes that the interests of OEMs and owners are perfectly aligned. They're not. OEMs want to meet CAFE requirements in the most economical way possible while retaining reasonable durability and reliability. Spec'ing a 20 weight oil is about the cheapest way to get there. Owners who value long-term durability over .2 mpg may choose differently.
While there are tons of examples of long-lived engines happily running on xxW-20, the fuel dilution that comes with DI/TGDI engines introduces a different dynamic that OEMs may not have fully come to grips with. Ford moved the spec on some EcoBoost engines from 5w-20 to 5w-30 because of fuel dilution with no engine modifications.
As a Honda owner, here's my perspective: Honda specs 0w-20 which has a 100C viscosity range of 6.9-9.2 cSt (or thereabouts). Most new 20 weights have viscosity of 8.2-9.1 at this temperature. Taking Honda's engineering as a given and knowing it's incapable of error, what am I to make of my 20 weight oil being fuel-diluted to 6.2 after a couple thousand miles? Seems to me I'm in violation of what Honda engineers planned and being too low is surely more dangerous than being too high.
As a 30 weight oil will dilute to a 20 weight quickly in most modern Hondas, using a 30 weight oil seems more closely aligned to Honda's viscosity wishes over the course of an OCI than 20 weight. WhIch is why I'll go to a 30 weight post-warranty. If I had a port-injected anything that spec'd 20 weight I wouldn't consider such a move.
ChevyMan93
Thread starter
Danh that's basically how I saw it in my head. That is my point exactly.
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Originally Posted By: Danh
Honda's assembly lubes put a lot of molybdenum into the factory fill on initial start-up, which seems to be why Honda suggests leaving the oil in for a normal interval. The thinking seems to be that the molybdenum prevents hot spots from forming on cylinder walls as they conform to piston rings during break-in. These hot spots can cause oil to leave deposits that can't be removed without engine tear-down and result in a permanently compromised seal. Does it really matter? Who knows?
Prior to 2011, Honda was having a lot of "excessive oil consumption" complaints, particularly in their VCM engines. For the 2011 MY, they publicly announced engine "improvements" that included new oil control rings and piston skirts with embedded moly surfacing. These new engine modications were applied to all engines, 4 or 6 cyl. Dealers were instructed to strictly enforce a "no early oil change" edict so that the time released moly on the piston skirts could do their thing. FF UOAs started showing up with high moly content and so began the myth of the magical Honda factory fill.
The 2011 design changes apparently worked as oil consumption complaints died down. Nonetheless, Honda was the subject of a class action law suit pertaining to both 4 and 6 cyl vehicles with the original subject being excessive oil consumption. Honda's deep and talented legal team eventually got the complaint whittled down to VCM "misfires" pertaining to four specific CEL codes. In the settlement, Honda agreed to reimburse customers who has spent money at their dealers on these four specific codes and extend all VCM warranties to 8 years. In the meantime, many, many, faithful Honda customers got burned by Honda hardball tactics and swore off the brand. What exactly they are doing in 2017, I do not know and do not care.
This^^^^
Originally Posted By: Danh
Honda's assembly lubes put a lot of molybdenum into the factory fill on initial start-up, which seems to be why Honda suggests leaving the oil in for a normal interval. The thinking seems to be that the molybdenum prevents hot spots from forming on cylinder walls as they conform to piston rings during break-in. These hot spots can cause oil to leave deposits that can't be removed without engine tear-down and result in a permanently compromised seal. Does it really matter? Who knows?
Prior to 2011, Honda was having a lot of "excessive oil consumption" complaints, particularly in their VCM engines. For the 2011 MY, they publicly announced engine "improvements" that included new oil control rings and piston skirts with embedded moly surfacing. These new engine modications were applied to all engines, 4 or 6 cyl. Dealers were instructed to strictly enforce a "no early oil change" edict so that the time released moly on the piston skirts could do their thing. FF UOAs started showing up with high moly content and so began the myth of the magical Honda factory fill.
The 2011 design changes apparently worked as oil consumption complaints died down. Nonetheless, Honda was the subject of a class action law suit pertaining to both 4 and 6 cyl vehicles with the original subject being excessive oil consumption. Honda's deep and talented legal team eventually got the complaint whittled down to VCM "misfires" pertaining to four specific CEL codes. In the settlement, Honda agreed to reimburse customers who has spent money at their dealers on these four specific codes and extend all VCM warranties to 8 years. In the meantime, many, many, faithful Honda customers got burned by Honda hardball tactics and swore off the brand. What exactly they are doing in 2017, I do not know and do not care.
This^^^^
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Originally Posted By: ChevyMan93
I realize that. But you can't tell that big of a difference in 0w-20 and 5w-30 in regards to the car being sluggish. It can't be THAT big of a difference.
I was just reviewing the specs on a new oil put out by Chevron. Let's take a look:
https://cglapps.chevron.com/msdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=486786&docFormat=PDF
Chevron, like most oil makers, publishes Kinematic Viscosity, cSt at 40°C and at 100°C. For 0W-20, the values reported are 45.0 and 8.4. For 5W-30, they are 72.3 and 11.8. The difference at 40C (closest to critical startup temps) is a 60% increase in viscosity. I would imagine you would notice that much more drag on your starter, particularly at colder temps. At 100C (typical operating temp), it's a 40% increase. Now you may not be able to discern this increase once the engine is running but do you think maybe your oil pump that was designed for 0W-20 might notice? The OEM engineers have chosen an oil viscosity as part of a design package. You cannot begin to imagine what other unintended consequences you may create through shade tree engineering a "better" oil viscosity for your engine.
And This^^^
Originally Posted By: ChevyMan93
I realize that. But you can't tell that big of a difference in 0w-20 and 5w-30 in regards to the car being sluggish. It can't be THAT big of a difference.
I was just reviewing the specs on a new oil put out by Chevron. Let's take a look:
https://cglapps.chevron.com/msdspds/PDSDetailPage.aspx?docDataId=486786&docFormat=PDF
Chevron, like most oil makers, publishes Kinematic Viscosity, cSt at 40°C and at 100°C. For 0W-20, the values reported are 45.0 and 8.4. For 5W-30, they are 72.3 and 11.8. The difference at 40C (closest to critical startup temps) is a 60% increase in viscosity. I would imagine you would notice that much more drag on your starter, particularly at colder temps. At 100C (typical operating temp), it's a 40% increase. Now you may not be able to discern this increase once the engine is running but do you think maybe your oil pump that was designed for 0W-20 might notice? The OEM engineers have chosen an oil viscosity as part of a design package. You cannot begin to imagine what other unintended consequences you may create through shade tree engineering a "better" oil viscosity for your engine.
And This^^^
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Now you may not be able to discern this increase once the engine is running but do you think maybe your oil pump that was designed for 0W-20 might notice? The OEM engineers have chosen an oil viscosity as part of a design package. You cannot begin to imagine what other unintended consequences you may create through shade tree engineering a "better" oil viscosity for your engine.
What will the oil pump notice when starting on a Saskatchewan -40 morning versus a Florida +70 morning? 0w-20 here is going to be a lot thicker at -40 than will SAE 40 even at 70 F. Really, the notion that only one viscosity is suitable for an engine is laughable.
The HTHS difference between an ILSAC 30 and a 0w-20 isn't exactly large, either.
While there's nothing wrong with sticking to specifications, the laws of physics don't change. Honda manuals also note that 0w-20 is recommended; they don't even list it as required.
Now you may not be able to discern this increase once the engine is running but do you think maybe your oil pump that was designed for 0W-20 might notice? The OEM engineers have chosen an oil viscosity as part of a design package. You cannot begin to imagine what other unintended consequences you may create through shade tree engineering a "better" oil viscosity for your engine.
What will the oil pump notice when starting on a Saskatchewan -40 morning versus a Florida +70 morning? 0w-20 here is going to be a lot thicker at -40 than will SAE 40 even at 70 F. Really, the notion that only one viscosity is suitable for an engine is laughable.
The HTHS difference between an ILSAC 30 and a 0w-20 isn't exactly large, either.
While there's nothing wrong with sticking to specifications, the laws of physics don't change. Honda manuals also note that 0w-20 is recommended; they don't even list it as required.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Now you may not be able to discern this increase once the engine is running but do you think maybe your oil pump that was designed for 0W-20 might notice? The OEM engineers have chosen an oil viscosity as part of a design package. You cannot begin to imagine what other unintended consequences you may create through shade tree engineering a "better" oil viscosity for your engine.
What will the oil pump notice when starting on a Saskatchewan -40 morning versus a Florida +70 morning? 0w-20 here is going to be a lot thicker at -40 than will SAE 40 even at 70 F. Really, the notion that only one viscosity is suitable for an engine is laughable.
The HTHS difference between an ILSAC 30 and a 0w-20 isn't exactly large, either.
While there's nothing wrong with sticking to specifications, the laws of physics don't change. Honda manuals also note that 0w-20 is recommended; they don't even list it as required.
Honda manuals are different: transmission and differential are "required" to use specific Honda fluids, but 0w-20 is only "recommended". American Honda responded to an inquiry about the required/recommended distinction by basically there was none: only 0w-20 should be used. Whether this would stand scrutiny I don't know but the wording can't be accidental. Sigh...what's an owner to do?
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Now you may not be able to discern this increase once the engine is running but do you think maybe your oil pump that was designed for 0W-20 might notice? The OEM engineers have chosen an oil viscosity as part of a design package. You cannot begin to imagine what other unintended consequences you may create through shade tree engineering a "better" oil viscosity for your engine.
What will the oil pump notice when starting on a Saskatchewan -40 morning versus a Florida +70 morning? 0w-20 here is going to be a lot thicker at -40 than will SAE 40 even at 70 F. Really, the notion that only one viscosity is suitable for an engine is laughable.
The HTHS difference between an ILSAC 30 and a 0w-20 isn't exactly large, either.
While there's nothing wrong with sticking to specifications, the laws of physics don't change. Honda manuals also note that 0w-20 is recommended; they don't even list it as required.
Honda manuals are different: transmission and differential are "required" to use specific Honda fluids, but 0w-20 is only "recommended". American Honda responded to an inquiry about the required/recommended distinction by basically there was none: only 0w-20 should be used. Whether this would stand scrutiny I don't know but the wording can't be accidental. Sigh...what's an owner to do?
First off, the UOA section is your friend.
Most DI 2.4s don't show much trouble with fuel dilution, so this is probably a phantom concern.
Your engine is no more nor less than a K24 given DI.
This engine had a 5W-20 recommended for it in the 2003 Accord in which it was introduced.
The 0W-20 grade is no more than a slight progression from this.
You want to run a thicker grade because some Chicken Little has you concerned?
You can with no harm done to the engine nor the oil pump or its drive, but you don't actually need to.
Honda is probably the world master of four cylinder engines. If they recommend a 0W-20 grade, then they do so
knowing more than you, me or anyone else here.
Anyway, engines aren't all that sensitive to oil grade used and I write this as one who has used many grades in many engines over many years.
Note that the K24 Honda in my sig has a 0W-20 in it and has had since it was delivered to us with all of six miles.
Yeah, I ran the factory fill to 15% MM, which was 8700 miles.
Most DI 2.4s don't show much trouble with fuel dilution, so this is probably a phantom concern.
Your engine is no more nor less than a K24 given DI.
This engine had a 5W-20 recommended for it in the 2003 Accord in which it was introduced.
The 0W-20 grade is no more than a slight progression from this.
You want to run a thicker grade because some Chicken Little has you concerned?
You can with no harm done to the engine nor the oil pump or its drive, but you don't actually need to.
Honda is probably the world master of four cylinder engines. If they recommend a 0W-20 grade, then they do so
knowing more than you, me or anyone else here.
Anyway, engines aren't all that sensitive to oil grade used and I write this as one who has used many grades in many engines over many years.
Note that the K24 Honda in my sig has a 0W-20 in it and has had since it was delivered to us with all of six miles.
Yeah, I ran the factory fill to 15% MM, which was 8700 miles.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
First off, the UOA section is your friend.
Most DI 2.4s don't show much trouble with fuel dilution, so this is probably a phantom concern.
Your engine is no more nor less than a K24 given DI.
This engine had a 5W-20 recommended for it in the 2003 Accord in which it was introduced.
The 0W-20 grade is no more than a slight progression from this.
You want to run a thicker grade because some Chicken Little has you concerned?
You can with no harm done to the engine nor the oil pump or its drive, but you don't actually need to.
Honda is probably the world master of four cylinder engines. If they recommend a 0W-20 grade, then they do so
knowing more than you, me or anyone else here.
Anyway, engines aren't all that sensitive to oil grade used and I write this as one who has used many grades in many engines over many years.
Note that the K24 Honda in my sig has a 0W-20 in it and has had since it was delivered to us with all of six miles.
Yeah, I ran the factory fill to 15% MM, which was 8700 miles.
They recommend 0w20 because that is how cafe works. They test for MPG with 0w20, thus they are required to recommend that viscosity and that viscosity only for operation on a daily basis.
CAFE exists. It's law. Look it up
First off, the UOA section is your friend.
Most DI 2.4s don't show much trouble with fuel dilution, so this is probably a phantom concern.
Your engine is no more nor less than a K24 given DI.
This engine had a 5W-20 recommended for it in the 2003 Accord in which it was introduced.
The 0W-20 grade is no more than a slight progression from this.
You want to run a thicker grade because some Chicken Little has you concerned?
You can with no harm done to the engine nor the oil pump or its drive, but you don't actually need to.
Honda is probably the world master of four cylinder engines. If they recommend a 0W-20 grade, then they do so
knowing more than you, me or anyone else here.
Anyway, engines aren't all that sensitive to oil grade used and I write this as one who has used many grades in many engines over many years.
Note that the K24 Honda in my sig has a 0W-20 in it and has had since it was delivered to us with all of six miles.
Yeah, I ran the factory fill to 15% MM, which was 8700 miles.
They recommend 0w20 because that is how cafe works. They test for MPG with 0w20, thus they are required to recommend that viscosity and that viscosity only for operation on a daily basis.
CAFE exists. It's law. Look it up
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
First off, the UOA section is your friend.
Most DI 2.4s don't show much trouble with fuel dilution, so this is probably a phantom concern.
Your engine is no more nor less than a K24 given DI.
This engine had a 5W-20 recommended for it in the 2003 Accord in which it was introduced.
The 0W-20 grade is no more than a slight progression from this.
You want to run a thicker grade because some Chicken Little has you concerned?
You can with no harm done to the engine nor the oil pump or its drive, but you don't actually need to.
Honda is probably the world master of four cylinder engines. If they recommend a 0W-20 grade, then they do so
knowing more than you, me or anyone else here.
Anyway, engines aren't all that sensitive to oil grade used and I write this as one who has used many grades in many engines over many years.
Note that the K24 Honda in my sig has a 0W-20 in it and has had since it was delivered to us with all of six miles.
Yeah, I ran the factory fill to 15% MM, which was 8700 miles.
Your 2012 K24 isn't DI, so it's not the same thing. Most UOAs here are from Blackstone, which does not do a credible job of estimating fuel dilution. But even with a Blackstone UOA, look at the 100C viscosity for a 2013+ Accord or 2015/16 CRV: you'll find most are in the low 6s with fuel dilution the likely culprit. And if you can find one from Polaris you'll find 5%+ isn't unusual.
So they do dilute, but the real question is does it really matter? I don't know, but would like to think Honda knows what it's doing. On the other hand, with prior Honda fails on automatic transmissions, VCM and oil consumption I can't say my faith is absolute.
First off, the UOA section is your friend.
Most DI 2.4s don't show much trouble with fuel dilution, so this is probably a phantom concern.
Your engine is no more nor less than a K24 given DI.
This engine had a 5W-20 recommended for it in the 2003 Accord in which it was introduced.
The 0W-20 grade is no more than a slight progression from this.
You want to run a thicker grade because some Chicken Little has you concerned?
You can with no harm done to the engine nor the oil pump or its drive, but you don't actually need to.
Honda is probably the world master of four cylinder engines. If they recommend a 0W-20 grade, then they do so
knowing more than you, me or anyone else here.
Anyway, engines aren't all that sensitive to oil grade used and I write this as one who has used many grades in many engines over many years.
Note that the K24 Honda in my sig has a 0W-20 in it and has had since it was delivered to us with all of six miles.
Yeah, I ran the factory fill to 15% MM, which was 8700 miles.
Your 2012 K24 isn't DI, so it's not the same thing. Most UOAs here are from Blackstone, which does not do a credible job of estimating fuel dilution. But even with a Blackstone UOA, look at the 100C viscosity for a 2013+ Accord or 2015/16 CRV: you'll find most are in the low 6s with fuel dilution the likely culprit. And if you can find one from Polaris you'll find 5%+ isn't unusual.
So they do dilute, but the real question is does it really matter? I don't know, but would like to think Honda knows what it's doing. On the other hand, with prior Honda fails on automatic transmissions, VCM and oil consumption I can't say my faith is absolute.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
I guess you can always move up to a 5W20? Is a 5W "stronger" than a 0W? Me being a thick oil guy,0W20 was a completely foreign entity to me haha. I might take baby steps in my Honda,making 5W20 my next oil,probably QSUD.
5w and 0w oils are only different in extreme cold
Interesting but maybe a bit of an urban myth.
Hyundai/Kia allow for a variety of grades in their OMs, for example.
The OM of our '09 Forester states that 5W-30 is the preferred grade but then goes on to allow for the use of 10W-30 and 10W-40 down to -4F. You wanna run an SAE 30 or 40? Okay according to Subaru and a 20W-50 would be as well.
I'm not so sure that CAFE requires that but one grade of oil be recommended for any vehicle.
Rather, I think that the manufacturers simply feel that the average owner is too simple to figure out what to use so they just recommend something that will work okay from the frozen North in January up through the heat of a July in the South. This grade may be optimized toward the cold end of the spectrum but will still allow the engine to outlast the car in which it's installed even in hot conditions, although a thicker grade might be optimal for these conditions.
Hyundai/Kia allow for a variety of grades in their OMs, for example.
The OM of our '09 Forester states that 5W-30 is the preferred grade but then goes on to allow for the use of 10W-30 and 10W-40 down to -4F. You wanna run an SAE 30 or 40? Okay according to Subaru and a 20W-50 would be as well.
I'm not so sure that CAFE requires that but one grade of oil be recommended for any vehicle.
Rather, I think that the manufacturers simply feel that the average owner is too simple to figure out what to use so they just recommend something that will work okay from the frozen North in January up through the heat of a July in the South. This grade may be optimized toward the cold end of the spectrum but will still allow the engine to outlast the car in which it's installed even in hot conditions, although a thicker grade might be optimal for these conditions.
ChevyMan93
Thread starter
Well considering i live in Tennessee and drive mountainous roads everyday, i was figuring 5w-30 would be ok. i am at least going to try it, do a UOA and see.
Once upon a time, I was an investigator in the warranty claims department of a manufacturer in another industry. It always amazed me how customers think they know better than the engineers that research, design, and test the product to the 'n-th' degree. You can always make something work with a non-spec application but other issues will inevitably arise resulting in less than expected performance and/or longevity.
Good luck to all you shade-tree engineers.
Good luck to all you shade-tree engineers.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
Once upon a time, I was an investigator in the warranty claims department of a manufacturer in another industry. It always amazed me how customers think they know better than the engineers that research, design, and test the product to the 'n-th' degree. You can always make something work with a non-spec application but other issues will inevitably arise resulting in less than expected performance and/or longevity.
Good luck to all you shade-tree engineers.
And it amazes me that, with all the missteps auto OEMs have made over the years, they can be considered infallible. Testing to the "nth" degree wouldn't have resulted in, just to name a few, Honda's transmission, VCM and oil consumption problems, Toyota's "sludgers" and oil burners, Ford's dual-clutch tranmsissions and 1.6 EcoBoosts, Subaru head gaskets...
In the case of Honda, let's say their engineers are surprised at the level of fuel dilution in the hands of real-world drivers. And let's say they believe that, under some conditions, it could accelerate engine wear.
What are their choices?
1) Change the oil spec to an xx-30. And accept the mpg penalty this may involve, recertify CAFE mileage and accept any penalties. Oh, and back-spec 2013-2017 Accords and 2015-2016 CRVs to xx-30 and recertify this class of cars as well.
2) Reprogram the PCM to prevent fuel dilution that will likely involve an mpg hit as well, recertify, etc.
3) Reprogram the PCM to shorten the oil change interval, probably make it a mandatory recall and accept the PR consequences.
4) Convince themselves that the problem really isn't that serious, probably won't have an impact during warranty or maybe in the first 100k and do nothing.
Which one do you think they'd choose?
Of course there's always the chance Honda engineers understand this perfectly and have done testing to prove there are no adverse consequences to fuel dilution. But OEMs have made tons of mistakes like this in the past and I don't think it's unreasonable for owners to assume the worst: going up an oil grade and more-frequent oil changes aren't going to hurt anything
Once upon a time, I was an investigator in the warranty claims department of a manufacturer in another industry. It always amazed me how customers think they know better than the engineers that research, design, and test the product to the 'n-th' degree. You can always make something work with a non-spec application but other issues will inevitably arise resulting in less than expected performance and/or longevity.
Good luck to all you shade-tree engineers.
And it amazes me that, with all the missteps auto OEMs have made over the years, they can be considered infallible. Testing to the "nth" degree wouldn't have resulted in, just to name a few, Honda's transmission, VCM and oil consumption problems, Toyota's "sludgers" and oil burners, Ford's dual-clutch tranmsissions and 1.6 EcoBoosts, Subaru head gaskets...
In the case of Honda, let's say their engineers are surprised at the level of fuel dilution in the hands of real-world drivers. And let's say they believe that, under some conditions, it could accelerate engine wear.
What are their choices?
1) Change the oil spec to an xx-30. And accept the mpg penalty this may involve, recertify CAFE mileage and accept any penalties. Oh, and back-spec 2013-2017 Accords and 2015-2016 CRVs to xx-30 and recertify this class of cars as well.
2) Reprogram the PCM to prevent fuel dilution that will likely involve an mpg hit as well, recertify, etc.
3) Reprogram the PCM to shorten the oil change interval, probably make it a mandatory recall and accept the PR consequences.
4) Convince themselves that the problem really isn't that serious, probably won't have an impact during warranty or maybe in the first 100k and do nothing.
Which one do you think they'd choose?
Of course there's always the chance Honda engineers understand this perfectly and have done testing to prove there are no adverse consequences to fuel dilution. But OEMs have made tons of mistakes like this in the past and I don't think it's unreasonable for owners to assume the worst: going up an oil grade and more-frequent oil changes aren't going to hurt anything
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 40
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 835
- Question
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 1K