One Dodge running 5W20 rewrites all the engineering texts in history ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stevie, I'm not even relating it to 0w20. I just want to know where the 99% figure comes (other than as a subjective perception). Regardless of oil weight.

As for your Highlander, let me reproduce a page from the 2017 manual. Why would you fully trust and observe the part about 0W20, but not the one saying "An oil with a higher viscosity may be better suited if ..."?





BA27AB2C-F7D9-47E2-90D8-41172744879E.webp
 
Nap,

I explained the 99% and where it came from. Please re-read my post above.

I'm not operating my Highlander outside of those parameters and I'm using what I consider to be a very high quality oil capable of delivering excellent protection at the 20wt it is. High speeds doesn't mean typical highway speeds and certainly when on the highway it's rare for my Highlander to be doing anything above 2200 rpm at those speeds, even with my lead foot unless I'm engaged in WOT to pass.
 
Last edited:
I think Toyota understands that a 20 weight is not ideal. I think it's why they had ExxonMobil ridiculously over engineer their newest 0w 20. Because they want to make as sure as they can that it won't won't fall out of grade. Because they know it's not safe for their engines.
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
Nap,

I explained the 99% and where it came from. Please re-read my post above.

I'm not operating my Highlander outside of those parameters and I'm using what I consider to be a very high quality oil capable of delivering excellent protection at the 20wt it is. High speeds doesn't mean typical highway speeds and certainly when on the highway it's rare for my Highlander to be doing anything above 2200 rpm at those speeds, even with my lead foot unless I'm engaged in WOT to pass.



You mean the adequate or acceptable protection. If it were excellent protection they wouldn't need to talk about other options.
 
Last edited:
Well Stevie, I'd say that this gentleman Shannow can be very opinionated and even harsh when arguing, however, when cornered, he is always able to produce one or more of scientific studies or data that support his statements. As a minimum courtesy, one should be always prepared to do the same when engaging him...
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
The diminishing returns aren't realized until way way way after the junk points of most vehicles. There are high milers right here on BITOG that have done it on 20 weights. PROOF!

I wasn't arguing that their isn't increased wear, just that it's a non-issue in the majority of cases even well out to a really high mileage so why change to a 30wt in fear, especially in Alberta winter where it could be counter intuitive.

We have to be cautious about where, however, those diminishing returns become seriously problematic. I do have some faith, however, that warranty actuarials will keep some of that in check. Me running a 20w-50 or an SAE 40 in my G37 where a 5w30 ILSAC is perfectly acceptable will save more fuel than me dropping from a 5w30 ILSAC to a 5w-20, and in that engine, I'd start to worry about wear. Clearly, not every engine specifies a 20 or is backspeced to one, either.

So, the concerns are absolutely real for certain platforms. From a non-technical perspective, again, people do see that and tend to worry. From a technical perspective, though, it's all been spelled out here fairly well, and we all nitpick about certain things. You're clearly worried about wear. You drive a bajillion miles a year. You're looking for better filtration. You're running a premium oil. You use a catch can. You take meticulous care of your vehicles.

Some guys use block heaters in the summer. Others are concerned about higher HTHS. Others are looking for higher additive levels.

Lower HTHS certainly has tradeoffs, and note that some of those tradeoffs are good. Each time an oil specification gets thinner, people will be concerned. At one point, however, for each vehicle, there is a tipping point. I'm not terribly thrilled with the idea of abandoning parts separation even more to slide along the Stribeck curve.

What really picks my behind, and I'm sure it does with many BITOGers here, is that OEMs treat us like darned fools. As I pointed out, though, that applies to most of the oil buying public, so we're collateral damage.

No, a 15w40 isn't going to make a Dodge gasser explode, contrary to what the OEM would have us believe. No, a 0w-20 won't hurt my G37 in a Saskatchewan winter, particularly the way I drive, despite the 5w30 recommendation.
 
Originally Posted by nap
Well Stevie, I'd say that this gentleman Shannow can be very opinionated and even harsh when arguing, however, when cornered, he is always able to produce one or more of scientific studies or data that support his statements. As a minimum courtesy, one should be always prepared to do the same when engaging him...



I provided what I could and explained myself thoroughly. Where is his support that I'm wrong other than throwing the same papers back that I didn't question what was written in them only that it didn't affect the majority of engines on the road in the lifetimes they will be operated.

My evidence was that OE's aren't moving back to 30wt's and that there are tons of folks on this board and in the general population operating on 20wt's with 0 longevity issues even when kept past the average junk point of 200,000 miles.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by StevieC
Nap,

I explained the 99% and where it came from. Please re-read my post above.

I'm not operating my Highlander outside of those parameters and I'm using what I consider to be a very high quality oil capable of delivering excellent protection at the 20wt it is. High speeds doesn't mean typical highway speeds and certainly when on the highway it's rare for my Highlander to be doing anything above 2200 rpm at those speeds, even with my lead foot unless I'm engaged in WOT to pass.



You mean the adequate or acceptable protection. If it were excellent protection they wouldn't need to talk about other options.


I define excellent as a million miles. Adequate / Acceptable is defined as 300,000 miles or less. That should tell you where I place 20wt's
 
Originally Posted by Ablebody
I think Toyota understands that a 20 weight is not ideal. I think it's why they had ExxonMobil ridiculously over engineer their newest 0w 20. Because they want to make as sure as they can that it won't won't fall out of grade. Because they know it's not safe for their engines.


But at the end of the day i the oil is working based on this why does it matter? It's a 20wt oil that is properly designed to for an engine that calls for it and the combination leads to long engine life.
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by StevieC
Nap,

I explained the 99% and where it came from. Please re-read my post above.

I'm not operating my Highlander outside of those parameters and I'm using what I consider to be a very high quality oil capable of delivering excellent protection at the 20wt it is. High speeds doesn't mean typical highway speeds and certainly when on the highway it's rare for my Highlander to be doing anything above 2200 rpm at those speeds, even with my lead foot unless I'm engaged in WOT to pass.



You mean the adequate or acceptable protection. If it were excellent protection they wouldn't need to talk about other options.


I define excellent as a million miles. Adequate / Acceptable is defined as 300,000 miles or less. That should tell you where I place 20wt's

How much loss of power and oil consumption is acceptable in those time frames? Engine don't go from new to failed all at once.
 
Ok so then my Journey was 1/3'rd of the way through it's life on a 20wt when it was totaled in the accident. It used no measurable amount of oil.

My dad's 2012 Caravan used Castrol GTX conventional up to 180,000km 5w20 when it was my fleet van for work before I bought it off the leasing company for him and uses conventional still to this day now that he owns it and it is now over 300K km and uses no measurable amount of oil. Runs perfectly.

There are other high milers on this board some of which commented in my 20wt thread that that have used 20wt's to high miles and no oil consumed.

There are also new engines that use oil from day 1 so...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by StevieC
My evidence was that OE's aren't moving back to 30wt's and that there are tons of folks on this board and in the general population operating on 20wt's with 0 longevity issues even when kept past the average junk point of 200,000 miles.


I've also stated that GM are SPECIFYING dexos 2 in Australia, and making statements that Dexos 1 is not supported for warranty....that's a fact too, equally as important as your statements, however totally glossed over.

Originally Posted by StevieC
I provided what I could and explained myself thoroughly.


When you throw out stuff that you are stating is important
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by StevieC
but the flow is a good thing.


Which flow is that and why is it beneficial ?

Why doesn't a 0W40 provide that...or a 5W40?


0w20 is like water when really cold or at least the Amsoil stuff is, I have put it in the freezer already to see and it flows faster that the Amsoil 0w40 and the Amsoil 0w30 in comparison. All flow well but the 0w20 flows the best in reality.


Originally Posted by Shannow
And how, when it's delivered to the engine by a positive displacement oil pump does a freezer slosh test equate to "flow".

And why is "flow" important ?

Limits of pumpability for a 0W are -35 to -40C (about the same in F)...0F is way into the pumpable range for all of them...


I'm asking you to explain yourself thoroughly...or even a little bit
 
Please refer to post #4876915

Where I said...

Quote
I'm going to stop here because otherwise we will just keep going in circles.


cheers3.gif
Good Discussion.
 
Originally Posted by StevieC
Please refer to post #4876915

Where I said...

Quote
I'm going to stop here because otherwise we will just keep going in circles.



OK, so you'll talk about what I've said...or not said but you've inferred that I've said, and the fear that instils in the average BITOGer

But refuse to engage WITH me...

May I respectfully request that instead of the above, you engage with the other posters, specifically on what they are discussing, and not bring any of my prior statements (or what you TOOK from them) into discussion.
 
Originally Posted by Ablebody
I think Toyota understands that a 20 weight is not ideal. I think it's why they had ExxonMobil ridiculously over engineer their newest 0w 20. Because they want to make as sure as they can that it won't won't fall out of grade. Because they know it's not safe for their engines.


Please explain how you came to know all this.
 
Originally Posted by CharlieBauer
Originally Posted by Ablebody
I think Toyota understands that a 20 weight is not ideal. I think it's why they had ExxonMobil ridiculously over engineer their newest 0w 20. Because they want to make as sure as they can that it won't won't fall out of grade. Because they know it's not safe for their engines.


Please explain how you came to know all this.




I would like to hear this myself. This is part of the reason we have so much bickering on the T vs T subject. Statements like this just add fuel to the fire with no basis.
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by CharlieBauer
Originally Posted by Ablebody
I think Toyota understands that a 20 weight is not ideal. I think it's why they had ExxonMobil ridiculously over engineer their newest 0w 20. Because they want to make as sure as they can that it won't won't fall out of grade. Because they know it's not safe for their engines.


Please explain how you came to know all this.




I would like to hear this myself. This is part of the reason we have so much bickering on the T vs T subject. Statements like this just add fuel to the fire with no basis.


I don't think I used that word "know". It's what I think.
The reason I think it is because it has a vi of 227. That's seems incredibly high to me. Seems like they want to make darn sure it's gonna stay in grade as if they believe there's no room for error.
Also the moly 787 ppm. Seems like they also want it to be super slippery. It's just what I think and I don't claim to know alot about this stuff yet.
 
Originally Posted by Ablebody


I don't think I used that word "know". It's what I think.
The reason I think it is because it has a vi of 227. That's seems incredibly high to me. Seems like they want to make darn sure it's gonna stay in grade as if they believe there's no room for error.
Also the moly 787 ppm. Seems like they also want it to be super slippery. It's just what I think and I don't claim to know alot about this stuff yet.


The high VI in no way confirms it will stay in grade; quite the opposite. It points to a ton of VII in the lubricant which makes it more prone to shear. A 0w-20 that relies more on the VI of the base oil will have one significantly lower.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily conclude XOM had anything to do with developing this lubricant. While they may produce it for Toyota, it is likely to Toyota's spec's.
 
One of the iterations of TGMO dropped to 2.4HTHS early in it's life (CATERHAM's testing I agree with)...and Honda have hinted that before the adoption of 16 grade and lower, they were intentionally trying to get the oil to slip a grade early.

The 0W16s that we've seen to date are much more robustly built, almost close to a monograde in viscometrics which I think backs this up.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ablebody


I don't think I used that word "know". It's what I think.
The reason I think it is because it has a vi of 227. That's seems incredibly high to me. Seems like they want to make darn sure it's gonna stay in grade as if they believe there's no room for error.
Also the moly 787 ppm. Seems like they also want it to be super slippery. It's just what I think and I don't claim to know alot about this stuff yet.


The high VI in no way confirms it will stay in grade; quite the opposite. It points to a ton of VII in the lubricant which makes it more prone to shear. A 0w-20 that relies more on the VI of the base oil will have one significantly lower.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily conclude XOM had anything to do with developing this lubricant. While they may produce it for Toyota, it is likely to Toyota's spec's.

I see
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom