New 2017 Honda CR-V Suggestions

[ChevyMan93]

Originally Posted By: Danh
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




My opinion aligns with yours.

 

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: ChevyMan93
Originally Posted By: Danh
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




My opinion aligns with yours.

I think there is some validity to the warranty claims guy statement. However, there have been many missteps on the automotive companies side also.
When you consider that liability is the biggest driving factor in corporate America(and world) today, it is a pretty good bet no company is ever going to admit wrongdoing or mistakes or even responsibility.
In my case, with Ford's Ecoboost 2.7 and other Ecoboosts, I have enough information now to realize something MAY be out of kilter. With Ford pushing testing with the new GF-6, I think that is a reasonable assumption. Probably only affects a small amount of engines, but if one ends up being one of mine, I am not going to like it.
When bad things happen, more often than not it ends of being a combination of relatively minor factors that "snowball" into something serious.
So, I am going to do some UOA's, keep an eye out, change my oil often with quality oil. And we'll see what happens.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Danh
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?

Of course, they have themselves boxed into a corner. They're supposed to recommend what was used to get their fuel economy ratings. A 30 grade obviously won't cause harm, assuming it's not an SAE 30 in -40. When you call them, they'll say only 0w-20, since we're back to the same thing, where they have to push what was tested for fuel economy. Of course, even beyond that, without putting a chart, things get dumbed down, since you let someone use a 20w-50, they'll use it in a Saskatchewan winter, and no driver outside of BITOG would check SAE J300 in lieu of a chart.

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.

This isn't about shade tree engineering.

My original question remains valid, and the physics is the same when I'm sitting under the shade of a tree or whether I'm in a lab:

Originally Posted By: Garak
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.

 

[fdcg27]

Really?
Then why did you buy this Honda?
Seems like a bad bet.
The alternatives offered in the post to which you responded are also bogus.
If Honda really felt that a thirty grade were needed, then they'd simply issue a TSB allowing for the use of a thirty grade under severe conditions or in cases where a 0W-20 "isn't available" nod-nod, wink-wink, exactly as Toyota does in their OMs. Most owners here and on the Honda boards would get the message and so would all of the shops that do oil changes.
No harm, no foul and no "recertification", although I don't think that would be a requirement for what are now used cars anyway.

 

[kjbock]

While I agree, there have been several UOA's on Honda DI engines that show high levels of fuel dilution (K24 and L15), I don't think I've seen one yet with excessive amounts of engine wear.

The only relatively high metal levels I've seen were from an engine with low miles and was definitely still breaking in.

Honda was pretty late to the DI party and maybe they were because they were working on a design that could handle the well known problems you can get from DI.

Originally Posted By: Danh
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

 

[parshisa]

Folks, 0w20 is a must for L15B7 only in US. APAC, Europe, Australian Civics manuals give an option of 0w30, ,5w30, and FOR FUEL ECONOMY 0w20. Do you really think they build different motors for other motors? nah, very unlikely. so run whatever makes you feel good

 

[aquariuscsm]

Here's Shell Australia's lube match for my Honda:

Accord 2.4i (K24Z3) (Accord Euro) (P) (2008-2015)
Application Recommendation Capacity (ltr) Data Sheets
Engine (P) Helix Ultra 5W-40

http://www.shell.com.au/motorists/oils-l...zJmNmd5M2EyT04=

 

[Swifty]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Would a 5W30 make the K24 feel sluggish compared to a 20W?


You know it's funny I'm sure a lot of people would say yes. I have not noticed any difference what so ever. By the end of your interval your most likely going to be in the 20w range anyway using a 5w/30 resource conserving oil, they just don't seem to stay in grade over a 7,500 to 10k interval. I have seen at least 8-10 UOA's(all 30 weight)in the K24Z7 which is what is in the SI and everyone ended up as a 20 weight. Now with there being different versions of the K24 I don't know how the results would be but I'm guessing not much different. The protection is still there but your most likely to end up in the higher end of the 20 weight range. If you do find one that stays in grade over your interval I would be curious to know what it is.