Amsoil 0w20 SS, 4591mi, Civic 1.5T

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 21, 2017
Messages
1,916
Location
TX
Here's the latest report for my Civic. Re-filled with 5w30. Wonder now if I should've stick with 0w20...numbers look really good. FD is estimated again, so I'll request the lab to do the GC on this parameter. Although viscosity doesn't look too bad. Oil held up really well and OCI can be extended for sure (as it looks to me). Comments are welcomed

 
Last edited:
Best looking Honda 1.5T UOA I've seen. Every other one has viscosity in the high 5s, low 6s and FD >5% when measur d by GC.
 
I kinda feel bad now for dumping it that early. Should’ve pull the sample thru the dipstick. Also, not sure if 30 weight was really required here..
 
Also, would like to mention that I started premium at around 2k miles. Level dropped a bit and never moved since i’ve Added 0.2qts
 
Originally Posted By: parshisa
I kinda feel bad now for dumping it that early. Should’ve pull the sample thru the dipstick. Also, not sure if 30 weight was really required here..
You could do fine on 0w20 as long as your fuel dilution remains low like that. However, in TX, with a potential fuel diluter, and you maybe wanting to go 7,500 miles instead of a short 4k mile interval, your decision to go 5w30 full synthetic is wise. Plenty of visc safety margin for a 7,500 mile run.
 
Originally Posted By: Danh
Best looking Honda 1.5T UOA I've seen. Every other one has viscosity in the high 5s, low 6s and FD >5% when measur d by GC.


Looks like gasoline choice could be a factor with these engines when it comes to fuel dilution.
 

Here's an updated report with fuel dilution been measured rather than estimated. Very questionable accuracy if you ask me. Previous UOA with lower vis - no dilution, higher this time around - 3.7
confused.gif
 
So if I'm reading this right, it has (or at least had) about 14.5k miles on it at the 2nd UOA?

Break in metals are nicely low, overall.

Premium syns for 5k mile OCIs? Wasteful .... but I suspect that will fall on deaf ears.
 
totally agree. I will attempt to extend oci this time around to at least 7500, pull the sample and have it tested. my main concern was fuel dilution leading to extreme increase in total oil volume (which happened to be the case only with factory fill). having slightly higher viscosity to start with i think 7500 will be doable, perhaps even further. we shall see
 
I disagree that something is wasteful just because you didn't use it to the bitter end. There is value to some people in using things within their limits, and not always pushing it (peace of mind i suppose). To me a good UOA is a good UOA, you don't always need to ring out every penny. Oil is cheap.
 
What I mean saying I totally agree is that I could really go further on that oil, viscosity was fine, plenty of TBN left. To me, it’s more about finding the sweet spot between decent mileage on the oil and good wear numbers. Knowing that this particular oil can go 5k I feel comfortable extending OCI this time around. Hope this makes sense
 
Originally Posted By: JoelB
I disagree that something is wasteful just because you didn't use it to the bitter end. There is value to some people in using things within their limits, and not always pushing it (peace of mind i suppose). To me a good UOA is a good UOA, you don't always need to ring out every penny. Oil is cheap.


How do you define "bitter end"? Would that not be where some product or equipment is used to a point of actual damage? Not a limit of self-imposed fear-mongering, but actual data-driven proof of degradation?

I have run dino oils out to 15k miles in a few different applications, including soccer-mom mini-van abuse, and yet the UOAs came back fine. I continually run 10k miles on RK dino oil (about as inexpensive as you'll ever find retail), and yet the UOAs are fine.

If I can run dino oils REPEATEDLY and SAFELY out to 15k miles, where is that "bitter end"? And if syns are "better" than dino oils, just where is the end of bitter?


5k miles on Amsoil?
Whether you recognize it or not, that is WASTE.


parshisa has a decent plan. Take a few UOAs, extend as indicated, and continue. If fuel dilution is the concern, that is an INPUT to the wear. The RESULT is wear metal data. As long as that is not affected, continue on with caution.

We so very often hear the "cheap insurance" argument bantered over and over and over again.
If a "normal" product can go well past your intended use, it's not "cheap" to use a more expensive product in an ever-shorter duration.
It is waste.

Allow me to quote myself from another thread:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I love making analogies, because it often illuminates the obviousness some folks seem to overlook.
At the end of your work day, upon arriving home, you might want a beer with dinner. All you ever plan to consume is 12oz (because that's your self-imposed limit), but you buy 16oz bottles of beer because it's "cheap insurance" in case you want a bit more. Fine - so your selected product (16oz) already has the potential to cover your "overage" concerns. Typically, you just toss out 4oz every night. So then does it make sense to buy a bigger vessel (24oz or 40oz), if all you ever do is consume 12oz? Even if you went over your "normal" usage of 12oz, you've got 4oz in reserve with your typical 16oz product. Why buy an even larger beer that you're just going to throw away the unused portion, because of your self-imposed limit?


My point? Dino oils can EASILY cover out to 10k miles in most applications. So using a syn for 5k miles is not "cheap". It's "waste". In fact, even a dino oil changed at 5k miles is waste; it's just less wasteful than using syns at that duration.

The most irritating thing about the membership of this site is that MOST of them double down on waste. Not only do they over-buy and under-utilize their lubes, but then they willfully ignore the data they paid for, by eschewing the information in a UOA, and sticking with their emotional "It's cheap insurance" mentality.
 
We have all seen your long posts, and numerous comments about people being wasteful. It doesn't fall on deaf ears, most of us just don't care. I personally enjoy changing my oil, I like seeing fresh amber oil on the dipstick. I prefer synthetic because of the harsh environment i live in, and necessary or not it's only a few dollars more a year for me to use it.

Not all members here want to run long drain intervals, and i really can't see telling them they're being wasteful will do much.
 
Originally Posted By: JoelB
... It doesn't fall on deaf ears, most of us just don't care. ...

Not all members here want to run long drain intervals ....




You're not wrong. But that's the distinction I try to make.

What people WANT to do is totally fine with me. Live and let live. If someone admits that they enjoy something, and can recognize it may be wasteful, then there's no harm in that! It's OK to "want" to use and syn and change oil often; do what you wish with your money.

But let's not lose sight of the scope and mantra of what this site should be about. This should be a place where good information is shared; where newbies can come for good advice. Advice based on FACTS and DATA; not hype and opinions. The only way to make a good decision is to take in credible data and make a thoughtful analysis. It's not OK to give the impression overly frequent syn OCIs are a beneficial practice in terms of equipment care. There is not a shred of data that shows using syns for shorter OCIs produces any benefit to reducing wear. None whatsoever. So the message we should portray out to our site visitors and newbie members is that SMART decisions are based on facts, not wants. What your engine "needs" and what you "want" are two totally different things.

Don't be so vain as to think that only wishful BITOGers can be served by this site. It can have purpose and benefit far past our internal boundaries. But it needs to be credible, factual, and sensible. Not emotional.


It is a FACT that as the OCIs mature, wear rates drop (out to 15k miles).
It is a FACT that in "normal" everyday use across this continent, syns don't provide less wear for the typical user.
It is a FACT that grossly under-utilizing a product is a waste.
It is a FACT that ignoring data you pay for is a waste.



From the internet dictionary:
Waste - NOUN
1.an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose:
Example: "it's a waste of time trying to argue with him."




It is a waste of my time to convince you that your actions are wasteful.
But if you can waste oil, I can waste time.
Because maybe SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOU might actually learn something.



It's OK for you to waste your time and money; no one will take that away from you.
It's not OK for you to imply that others should do so; we owe other people who don't understand, a valid, truthful answer.



.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
...
But let's not lose sight of the scope and mantra of what this site should be about. This should be a place where good information is shared; where newbies can come for good advice. Advice based on FACTS and DATA; not hype and opinions.


It is not that I disagree with you, but where does it actually say this? There is no mission statement or other preamble on the home page (which actually takes you to articles) that says so.

If this is fact the scope and mantra that the owner, administrator(s) and other moderators wish to present, why is it not so stated and run as a general practice as if that is the purpose. (just for instance the Honda oil filter discussions contain false information, it gets repeated over and over.) Additionally why are there not extremely explicit rules for both members and moderators that enforce such.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
...The only way to make a good decision is to take in credible data and make a thoughtful analysis. It's not OK to give the impression overly frequent syn OCIs are a beneficial practice in terms of equipment care. There is not a shred of data that shows using syns for shorter OCIs produces any benefit to reducing wear. None whatsoever. So the message we should portray out to our site visitors and newbie members is that SMART decisions are based on facts, not wants. What your engine "needs" and what you "want" are two totally different things.


One might argue that the manufacturers have collected credible data and made recommendations suitable for the region in which the owners manual and maintenance schedule is applicable so any expenditure of time, money or effort beyond following the recommendations is a “waste”.

Smart is subject to interpretation. One might say it is not smart to spend money on 3 UOA’s to figure out you can run an oil to 15000, when the cost of the UOA’s would pay for an oil change... (or 3)

It is all a matter of perspective.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
...Don't be so vain as to think that only wishful BITOGers can be served by this site. It can have purpose and benefit far past our internal boundaries. But it needs to be credible, factual, and sensible. Not emotional.


Again sensible is subject to interpretation. I think twitter is non-sensical, others think BITOG is non-sensical.





Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It's OK for you to waste your time and money; no one will take that away from you.
It's not OK for you to imply that others should do so; we owe other people who don't understand, a valid, truthful answer.


Again it is a matter of perspective, is it also truthful to suggest that folks should spend money on UOA’s and time on collecting and analyzing data when the manufacturer has already done that...?

In fact might it be a waste to spend time, money, effort to maintain a website devoted to oil?
 
Speaking of fuel dilution in Honda’s 1.5T engine (if that’s what we were doing), there are interesting discussions on this point at one of the CRV forums.

It seems that, during very cold weather, some CRVs with the 1.5T engine are experiencing fuel dilution to the point they stop running or trigger a CEL. One owner says the dealership said he had 2liters of fuel in his car’s sump, others say plugs saturated with fuel stopped working and their cars had to be towed.

Honda seems to have no fix for this yet and none of the owners reporting problems seem to have had their car returned to them. One says 17 similar CRVs are similarly afflicted at their dealership alone awaiting a solution from Honda.

It has admittedly been a really cold winter and the vast, vast majority of 1.5T owners will not experience problems to this degree. But a world of damage could be done before the car gets to the point where it surrenders. Just goes to show that, if these forum posts are correct, Honda TGDI technology isn’t perfected quite yet. Or maybe they’re just not suited to North American locations north of the 45th parallel...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top