Oil Weight & The 100K (Myth?)>?

[buster]

I'm really surprised after 4 or so years of BITOG, that many still question 5w-20 oils. Why? I don't recall reading anything about engine failures due to 20wt oils which have been on the market for well over 5 years now. I also don't know why many would think that automotive engineers who design and test engines, would recommend something that would cause premature engine wear.

CAFE is the driving force behind the move to lower visc oils, but that doesn't mean they are therefore incapable of providing great protection.

Many long drain oils are higher viscosity due to fuel dilution and blow by. In moderate drains, say up to 10k miles, with cars designed to run on 20wt oils, I see no problems. Running a Delvac 1 out to 100k miles, which isn't that uncommon, I'd expect the viscosity to be higher to handle it. But again, a different situation entirely. Just my .02.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
I'm really surprised after 4 or so years of BITOG, that many still question 5w-20 oils. Why? I don't recall reading anything about engine failures due to 20wt oils which have been on the market for well over 5 years now. I also don't know why many would think that automotive engineers who design and test engines, would recommend something that would cause premature engine wear.
{SNIP}

---

I absolutely agree that we have not seen any apparent indications that 5w-20 is causing problems for users in "normal" automotive use. On the other hand, the engineers work for folks whose interests are not aligned with that of the consumer (extent of this conflict is, of course, debatable). Personally, I think that lingering doubts about the motives of car mfr management, with the existence of CAFE, are a big part of why the 5w-20 thing just won't die. I fully understand that for competitive reasons, business is naturally secretive, but I just wish that Ford and Honda would put their data on the table, saying in effect, "here are the results of our tests, as you can see, 5w-20 works fine. . ." The makers not having done so (at least in a public way), and little details, like Honda backing away from 5w-20 for towing in the Ridgeline truck, just fuel the continuing doubts about xw-20 oils. The only entities capable of putting the data "out there" for all to see are the car makers. Unless and until they do, it won't matter if our streets are crowded with still-healthy, one-million-mile 5w-20 cars, these doubts will stay alive for many people, right or wrong.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
like Honda backing away from 5w-20 for towing in the Ridgeline truck, just fuel the continuing doubts about xw-20 oils.

---

I hadn't heard about that. Has it been discussed on here? Can you point me to the discussion or your source?

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by G-Man II:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
like Honda backing away from 5w-20 for towing in the Ridgeline truck, just fuel the continuing doubts about xw-20 oils.

---

I hadn't heard about that. Has it been discussed on here? Can you point me to the discussion or your source?

---

I'll dig around a bit. I'm 99% certain I saw it here, but it could have been another source. Now I'm relying upon hearsay. . . Please note that I did not offer that to suggest that 5w-20 isn't perfectly acceptable in the applications for which it's prescribed (and in which it has developed a solid record). I'll get back.

Edit: corrected "is" to "isn't"

[ March 18, 2006, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: ekpolk ]

 

[The Critic]

G-Man, Ekpolk, and others:
From my understanding, Honda recommends the usage of 5w-20 in the Ridgeline, but allows for the usage of a heavier weight oil while towing.

 

[ekpolk]

The thread I was thinking of can be found here. Look about halfway down the first page, and see the comment by member Martyi (which reads, "I have a new Honda Ridgeline truck with the VTEC V6 engine. The manual does not talk at all about severe or normal service. All it says is that you should use 5w20 and go to a heavier weight oil only if you do a lot of towing.")

Assuming he quotes the language correctly, Honda does not seem to be requiring the use of "heavier" oil when towing, but rather, Honda permits its use.

Any Ridgeline owners reading who'd like to add to this?

 

[G-MAN]

This is interesting because with Ford, even in an F350 with a V10 the spec'd oil is 5w20 no matter what the truck is used for.

 

[1sttruck]

A summary of sorts..... the recent discussion concerned just piston asemblies, but there are obviously other wear points of concern in internal combustion engines. Previous postings of articles on wear in gears, valve trains, and journal bearings also reinforce the statement that in general higher viscosity oils tend to produce thicker oil films, which produces less wear. The possible problems/benefits depend upon a large number of varaiables, but a primary one is the type of lubrication that a component / assembly operates in, for how long, and under what loads.

 

[1sttruck]

"1sttruck, I think you can cherry pick any data and make a case for it to back up your argument."

If I post with no links I get accused of heresay, mere anecdotal evidence, and worse, but if I post links that support my statements I get accused of cherry picking; the porridge is either too hot or too cold it seems. It's even more bizarre when I post summaries from overviews or literature surveys and still get accused of cherry picking, as it's probably as far from cherry picking as you can get.

To me it sounds more like complaints of 'hey, that's not fair', when the problem is merely one of not being able to make a point using data from the same data pool, which is the whole world. Another problem is that people are often just plain sloppy, such as referencing data that in fact suggests other than what they want it to. Other problems are trying to support positions which are hard to defend if you're careful, but almost impossible to do so without supporting data, and being sloppy evidently because the position wasn't well developed to begin with. Immature statements don't help either, as it seems to end up like laying land mines everywhere and then letting someone guide one into their own mine field, where they seem to gladly stomp on every mine that they see.

 

[1sttruck]

"I absolutely agree that we have not seen any apparent indications that 5w-20 is causing problems for users in "normal" automotive use."

Same here, as even the comment below seems more similar to the large number of engine failures in state patrol cars using Mobil 1, where oi levels go too low, than to 'oil failure':

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...a.org/board/messages/11/92762.html?1123297062

Reread what Richard Taylor said above, he hit the nail on the head.

I'm a police officer with an agency with a fleet of over 600 police cars in its fleet and here is what I can tell you about what we see

here.

Most of the fleet are Ford Crown Vic's with V8s and Ford recomends 5-20 and for "warranty" reasons the motor pool uses 5-20. The

flip side of the coin, we've had oil related failures. I don't know if it was because the oil viscosity was too low to do a proper job, or was

due to low oil volume. (They do see increased oil consumption with the 5-20 over the 10-30 used in the past {more blow-by}).

I drive a Ford with a 4.0 V6 and run Mobile 1 10-30 and have over 100,000 miles and no problems and no oil consumption.

Consumer reports just ran an article about oil failure (severe sludge build-up) that was caused by, not improper oil change intervals,

but poor engine design. I do not recall all the manufactures thet had the problem but VW was one (they recomend a 0-15 or 0-20 as I

recall), and Ford was not one of them. With these problem engines CR recomended the use of a synthetic and frequent oil changes.

Bottom line: Use a good quality oil of your chioce, change it at the recommemded intervals (Ford - 3,000 miles as I recall for my two

trucks, V6 & V10), and use a GOOD filter and dont look back!

 

[jorton]

Just in case Chevron or Shell is watching, when 5w20 or 10w20 HD all fleet oil is invented, don't you know we'll have to find something else to read/write about!

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jorton:
Just in case Chevron or Shell is watching, when 5w20 or 10w20 HD all fleet oil is invented, don't you know we'll have to find something else to read/write about!

---

Well, 0w30 and 5w30 diesel engine oil is already here. Castrol's Elixion is available in 5w30 in North American and 0w30 elsewhere.

 

[bar1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by G-Man II:
How can it be a better solution if it's impossible to get?

---

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence...

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

A better solution seems to be the Exxon XD series of oils, like their 0W30 (?), which are pretty much impossible to get in the US.

---

Shell and Chevron offer this weight in HDEO. Shell's is a semi-synth. Unfortunately in that weight they only meet CH-4 and SJ specs while their 5w-40 counterparts meet the CI-4+ and SL.

Oddly, ExxonMobil, which allegedly includes all products worldwide, including ESSO offerings and products offered in Canada, has no knowledge of the XD-3 synths. Only Imperial Oil of Canada (ESSO) has pds on this(these) product(s)

 

[1sttruck]

"Well, 0w30 and 5w30 diesel engine oil is already here. Castrol's Elixion is available in 5w30 in North American and 0w30 elsewhere."

Motorcraft has a 10W30 HDEO, evidently developed for the newer Powerstroke. The local dealer though sent his inventory back to the warehouse as no one, not even the Ford mechanics were using it. A better solution seems to be the Exxon XD series of oils, like their 0W30 (?), which are pretty much impossible to get in the US.

 

[G-MAN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
A better solution seems to be the Exxon XD series of oils, like their 0W30 (?), which are pretty much impossible to get in the US.

---

How can it be a better solution if it's impossible to get?

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

I've often, but not always stated 'everything else being equal' when looking at the impact due to differences in viscosity. No question that current oils are typically better than older ones, typically much better, but that doesn't negate differences due to viscosity.

---

No ...it doesn't ...but in spite of the differences in visc ..does it really matter? If it did, then surely there would be significant instances in the general population to indicate that this difference had some meaningfull impact. It doesn't. We don't see the VW type "en mass" problem ..nor any other "flaw in concept" deal here.

I think that you're arguing the difference between 6" of concrete and 8" of concrete ...when 1/2" drywall is the required 2 hour fire wall.

I'll take HAL's approach on your assertions. Since there's no established and accepted connection between the use of contemporary 20 weight oils and higher related wear (interpretted to mean shorter engine life - loss of service) ..that I'll put it in service and let it fail. This should determine if the part was deffective ..or the assessment that it was defective ....was defective

 

[1sttruck]

"Oddly, ExxonMobil, which allegedly includes all products worldwide, including ESSO offerings and products offered in Canada, has no knowledge of the XD-3 synths. Only Imperial Oil of Canada (ESSO) has pds on this(these) product(s)"

I guess it's some sort of marketing agreement, otherwise due to the merger one line should have been dropped. I used XD3 Elite for awhile, which was evidently an HDEO synthetic blend, and when it became unavailble from a local lube place I starting making my own blend using Mobil products.

A 0w30 synthetic HDEO is a nice sounding package, at least for those of us who don't use PCMOs.

 

[1sttruck]

"I'll take HAL's approach on your assertions. Since there's no established and accepted connection between the use of contemporary 20 weight oils and higher related wear (interpretted to mean shorter engine life - loss of service) ..that I'll put it in service and let it fail. This should determine if the part was deffective ..or the assessment that it was defective ....was defective"

You start by implying that what's good enough for most should be good enough for all, and then use the assumption to suggest that it somehow negates data that is available on wear vs viscosity. If you're satisfied with what most people would be considered as adequate then yes, there is no need to be concerned about minimum wear / maximum engine life. I've suggested this more than a couple of times.

Since makers don't publish wear / engine life data based upon test results where similar formulations were tested at different viscosities, we need to look what data is available, and that data shows that thicker oils tend to provide thicker oil films, which produces less wear at different points in engines. These results have been made by those investigating and developing lower viscosity oils for increased fuel economy and lower frcition / higher power output. In this case we are discussing less and more wear instead of 'good enough'. The former is a qualitative / quantitative statement about the extent of wear, while the latter pretty much seems to be a value statement.

I'm not trying to be testy here, instead I'm just trying to frame this discussion in order to minimize confusion.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, certainly there can be some applications where 5w-20 would be inappropriate. Surely this is so.
Conversely, there are applications where higher viscosity is inappropriate. Some engineers determine a life cycle of an engine by the amount of fuel that passes through it. This is somewhat universal if you think about it, if time factors are incorporated. It works with oil life (was it tooslick or msparks

). If using higher visc oils resulted in this accumulative fuel usage (let's say, for example, a short trip type using 15w40) ..would this not lead us to the same ending ... more wear? I'm sure there are other detractors from it ..but that's the most convenient at the moment

So, I would offer that higher visc oils may be "good enough" for many applications, ideal for a few and totally unnecessary for the majority. They have as much of a fringe area of unsuitability (from a purely lubrication stand point) and have some strikes against them in the terchiary (tertiary

) view.


Hey, pal ..I can swing both ways ..so to speak ;^) I use 5w-40 in an engine that appears to respond well to it. I have used 5w-20 in engines that appear to care less ...and everything in between

. That is, I have no alligence to any end of the spectrum.