340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue

"highkm" <ic3po DeleteThis @mac.com> wrote in message
news:1193149570.334306.98020@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Here's the latest word on 5w20 vs 0w30 viscosity in a 2003 Honda
> Accord EX. i am sure that many of you have wondered and read about why
> certain companies like Honda and Ford are using 5w20 insead of say
> 5w30 or 5w40 as in European cars. Contrary to the popular belief that
> Honda used 5w20 to meet CAFE requirements it is mostly due to engine
> tolerances. I have recently opened the Accord engine cover to examine
> the valve clearance as the valves started to get a bit noisy. To my
> surprise I have noticed slight groves and pitting in the cam lobes. A
> mechanis from the US has asked me if I were using a wrong oil. I asked
> what is wrong oil. He asked whether I used a higher viscosity oil
> higher than 5w20. I said I used Amsoil 0w30. What he claimed is that
> the camshafts did not get adequate volume of oil and the fact that
> they are the furthest in oil circuit, they got less oil than they
> should have due to lower flow of oil. This is theoretically possible,
> but I am not sure that pitting of the lobe material is due to reduced
> lubication. To me it looks like poor quality of material or poor
> quality control during manufacturing of the camshafts. The vehicle
> still does not burn more oil than it did when it was much newer i.e.
> 0.5l per 10,000Km. I am now going to switch to synthetic 5w20 in hope
> that the cams and the followers will last until 500,000Km. Does anyone
> have similar experience with their camshafts?
>
> Dan.

The engines in Europe have the same clearances as the US engines and they
don't require 5W20 oil. Your mechanic was BSing you. I had the same sort of
experience with Ford. I complained about a start-up noise and the first
question was "Are you using 5W20 Oil?" I was, so they couldn't use that as
an excuse. A friend had a Ford that smoked slightly at start-up (probably
leaky valve seal). The dealer told him to switch to 15W40! It didn't cause
any problems, but it didn't fix anything either.

Using 5W30 oil instead of 5W20 oil can't be a problem. Either oil is thicker
at a cold start-up than at operating temperature. If the oil passages and
clearances are so critical that the difference between 5W20 and 5W30 is
significant for a warmed up engine, there will be major lubrication issues
during cold starts.

I'd say the wear you described was not unusual for an engine with 340,000
km, particularly if you have been using second rate oil and not changing it
at the recommended intervals. I think it is not necessary to change to 5W20
oil. If the rest of your engine is worn, the bearing clearances are likely
greater than when new, and the 5W20 oil will leak out of the bearings
faster, negating any advantages you think you might get because the 5W20
flows easier.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

"highkm" <ic3po RemoveThis @mac.com> wrote in message
news:1193164037.788091.271390@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> You might have a point here. I also called Amsoil to discuss the
> difference between 2 oils in the engine and the situation. They have
> also firmly suggested not to switch to 5w20 whether it be Amsoil's or
> Honda's oil as it will accelerate the wear of other components which
> are currently functioning properly. It appears that a lot of people
> don't like the 5w20 oil. It would be interesting to find out if there
> are other higher milage vehicles out there that have used 5w20
> exclusively.


193,000 miles (I think that works out to 308,000km) on an '01 Accord EX-V6
doing oil changes approx every 7500 or so (when the maint light comes on)
using nothing but 5w20.
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

highkm <ic3po RemoveThis @mac.com> wrote in news:1193149570.334306.98020
@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> Here's the latest word on 5w20 vs 0w30 viscosity in a 2003 Honda
> Accord EX. i am sure that many of you have wondered and read about why
> certain companies like Honda and Ford are using 5w20 insead of say
> 5w30 or 5w40 as in European cars. Contrary to the popular belief that
> Honda used 5w20 to meet CAFE requirements it is mostly due to engine
> tolerances.


<snip gibberish>

You're talking through your hat, Mr. Metric Slave.

Below is one of the most critical clearances in any engine, one that has a
lot to do with oil pressure and consumption.

1991 Integra, 5W-30 oil specified.
Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0017", max .0020"

2003 RSX, 5W-20 oil specified.
Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0016", max .0020".

All the other relevant clearances I can find in my manuals are similarly
identical. 5W-20 is specified for CAFE reasons and no other.

And just for fun I looked up the same clearance on a 1952 Ford OHV six.
..0005"-.0021". Whaddya know. You suppose they were using 5W-20 in 1952?


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

Tegger wrote:

> highkm <ic3po.TakeThisOut@mac.com> wrote in news:1193149570.334306.98020
> @v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>Here's the latest word on 5w20 vs 0w30 viscosity in a 2003 Honda
>>Accord EX. i am sure that many of you have wondered and read about why
>>certain companies like Honda and Ford are using 5w20 insead of say
>>5w30 or 5w40 as in European cars. Contrary to the popular belief that
>>Honda used 5w20 to meet CAFE requirements it is mostly due to engine
>>tolerances.
>
>
>
> <snip gibberish>
>
> You're talking through your hat, Mr. Metric Slave.
>
> Below is one of the most critical clearances in any engine, one that has a
> lot to do with oil pressure and consumption.
>
> 1991 Integra, 5W-30 oil specified.
> Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0017", max .0020"
>
> 2003 RSX, 5W-20 oil specified.
> Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0016", max .0020".
>
> All the other relevant clearances I can find in my manuals are similarly
> identical. 5W-20 is specified for CAFE reasons and no other.
>
> And just for fun I looked up the same clearance on a 1952 Ford OHV six.
> .0005"-.0021". Whaddya know. You suppose they were using 5W-20 in 1952?
>
>


Heh heh heh... It's amazing on how specs for machanical components have
hardly changed over the years ain't it?

The biggest issue with camshaft wear as far as I can tell is the
reformulation of engine oils that remove direct contact "cushions."

This is an issue facing a lot of owners of older cars and is yet another
guv'ment mandate. (I can't speak for youse Canadians though).

To the best of my knowledge, only oils that meet Caterpillar's diesel
standard still have these ingredients. (Caterpillar uses Shell Rotella
from what I understand).

But, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this nonsense. I have a few
extra camshafts (and lifter sets) to keep me runnin' for a few years...

<G>

JT
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy DeleteThis @ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:y6qTi.262552$ax1.155997@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> highkm <ic3po DeleteThis @mac.com> wrote in news:1193149570.334306.98020
>> @v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>Here's the latest word on 5w20 vs 0w30 viscosity in a 2003 Honda
>>>Accord EX. i am sure that many of you have wondered and read about
>>>why certain companies like Honda and Ford are using 5w20 insead of
>>>say 5w30 or 5w40 as in European cars. Contrary to the popular belief
>>>that Honda used 5w20 to meet CAFE requirements it is mostly due to
>>>engine tolerances.
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip gibberish>
>>
>> You're talking through your hat, Mr. Metric Slave.
>>
>> Below is one of the most critical clearances in any engine, one that
>> has a lot to do with oil pressure and consumption.
>>
>> 1991 Integra, 5W-30 oil specified.
>> Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0017", max .0020"
>>
>> 2003 RSX, 5W-20 oil specified.
>> Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0016", max .0020".
>>
>> All the other relevant clearances I can find in my manuals are
>> similarly identical. 5W-20 is specified for CAFE reasons and no
>> other.
>>
>> And just for fun I looked up the same clearance on a 1952 Ford OHV
>> six. .0005"-.0021". Whaddya know. You suppose they were using 5W-20
>> in 1952?
>>
>>
>
>
> Heh heh heh... It's amazing on how specs for machanical components
> have hardly changed over the years ain't it?
>
> The biggest issue with camshaft wear as far as I can tell is the
> reformulation of engine oils that remove direct contact "cushions."



There is some evidence that organo-moly offers the same "wear pad"
protection that ZDDP used to provide. The API has not yet conducted
tests to definitively confirm this, though.

It's my understanding that engines with excessive cam-train wear rates
are performance engines with flat tappets, high spring rates and high-
lift cams. Your average road car has sufficiently developed metallurgy
that cam-train wear is not an issue even in the absence of ZDDP.



>
> This is an issue facing a lot of owners of older cars and is yet
> another guv'ment mandate. (I can't speak for youse Canadians though).



The API has stated on the record that older engines exhibit no excessive
wear with low-ZDDP GF-4 oils.

ZDDP is not the be-all-and-end-all of wear protection.






--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

highkm <ic3po.RemoveThis@mac.com> wrote in
news:1193164037.788091.271390@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:


>
> You might have a point here. I also called Amsoil to discuss the
> difference between 2 oils in the engine and the situation. They have
> also firmly suggested not to switch to 5w20 whether it be Amsoil's or
> Honda's oil as it will accelerate the wear of other components which
> are currently functioning properly. It appears that a lot of people
> don't like the 5w20 oil. It would be interesting to find out if there
> are other higher milage vehicles out there that have used 5w20
> exclusively.
>


If your car was not designed for 5W-20, DON'T use it.

If your car WAS designed for 5W-20, then you may use it.

It's the metallurgy that matters, not the clearances.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

On 10/23/2007 1:27 PM highkm spake these words of knowledge:

> On Oct 23, 11:31 am, Tegger <teg....RemoveThis@tegger.c0m> wrote:
>> highkm <ic....RemoveThis@mac.com> wrote in news:1193149570.334306.98020
>> @v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Here's the latest word on 5w20 vs 0w30 viscosity in a 2003 Honda
>> > Accord EX. i am sure that many of you have wondered and read about why
>> > certain companies like Honda and Ford are using 5w20 insead of say
>> > 5w30 or 5w40 as in European cars. Contrary to the popular belief that
>> > Honda used 5w20 to meet CAFE requirements it is mostly due to engine
>> > tolerances.
>>
>> <snip gibberish>
>>
>> You're talking through your hat, Mr. Metric Slave.
>>
>> Below is one of the most critical clearances in any engine, one that has a
>> lot to do with oil pressure and consumption.
>>
>> 1991 Integra, 5W-30 oil specified.
>> Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0017", max .0020"
>>
>> 2003 RSX, 5W-20 oil specified.
>> Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0016", max .0020".
>>
>> All the other relevant clearances I can find in my manuals are similarly
>> identical. 5W-20 is specified for CAFE reasons and no other.
>>
>> And just for fun I looked up the same clearance on a 1952 Ford OHV six.
>> .0005"-.0021". Whaddya know. You suppose they were using 5W-20 in 1952?
>>
>> --
>> Tegger
>>
>> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQwww.tegger.com/hondafaq/
>
> You might have a point here. I also called Amsoil to discuss the
> difference between 2 oils in the engine and the situation. They have
> also firmly suggested not to switch to 5w20 whether it be Amsoil's or
> Honda's oil as it will accelerate the wear of other components which
> are currently functioning properly. It appears that a lot of people
> don't like the 5w20 oil. It would be interesting to find out if there
> are other higher milage vehicles out there that have used 5w20
> exclusively.
>
> Thanks.
>

2003 Accord LX v4, 134,000 miles, Mobil-1 5-20, changed every 10,000
miles. Haven't noted any engine problems with power, mileage, problem
codes or noises.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
Life is short; break the rules, forgive quickly, kiss slowly, love
truly, laugh uncontrollably, and never regret anything that made you
Smile. Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we're here we
should dance...
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

Tegger wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy RemoveThis @ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:y6qTi.262552$ax1.155997@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>
>>Tegger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>highkm <ic3po RemoveThis @mac.com> wrote in news:1193149570.334306.98020
>>>@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here's the latest word on 5w20 vs 0w30 viscosity in a 2003 Honda
>>>>Accord EX. i am sure that many of you have wondered and read about
>>>>why certain companies like Honda and Ford are using 5w20 insead of
>>>>say 5w30 or 5w40 as in European cars. Contrary to the popular belief
>>>>that Honda used 5w20 to meet CAFE requirements it is mostly due to
>>>>engine tolerances.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>><snip gibberish>
>>>
>>>You're talking through your hat, Mr. Metric Slave.
>>>
>>>Below is one of the most critical clearances in any engine, one that
>>>has a lot to do with oil pressure and consumption.
>>>
>>>1991 Integra, 5W-30 oil specified.
>>>Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0017", max .0020"
>>>
>>>2003 RSX, 5W-20 oil specified.
>>>Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0016", max .0020".
>>>
>>>All the other relevant clearances I can find in my manuals are
>>>similarly identical. 5W-20 is specified for CAFE reasons and no
>>>other.
>>>
>>>And just for fun I looked up the same clearance on a 1952 Ford OHV
>>>six. .0005"-.0021". Whaddya know. You suppose they were using 5W-20
>>>in 1952?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Heh heh heh... It's amazing on how specs for machanical components
>>have hardly changed over the years ain't it?
>>
>>The biggest issue with camshaft wear as far as I can tell is the
>>reformulation of engine oils that remove direct contact "cushions."
>
>
>
>
> There is some evidence that organo-moly offers the same "wear pad"
> protection that ZDDP used to provide. The API has not yet conducted
> tests to definitively confirm this, though.
>
> It's my understanding that engines with excessive cam-train wear rates
> are performance engines with flat tappets, high spring rates and high-
> lift cams. Your average road car has sufficiently developed metallurgy
> that cam-train wear is not an issue even in the absence of ZDDP.
>

I share the same assessment and hope that your, er, I'm right.

And then there was that issue of valve seats being a problem when lead
was removed from gas. That has generally not proven to be the case with
Studebakers. So far so good..


>
>
>
>>This is an issue facing a lot of owners of older cars and is yet
>>another guv'ment mandate. (I can't speak for youse Canadians though).
>
>
>
>
> The API has stated on the record that older engines exhibit no excessive
> wear with low-ZDDP GF-4 oils.
>
> ZDDP is not the be-all-and-end-all of wear protection.
>
>
>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy RemoveThis @ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:zxtTi.16385$kj1.5876@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Tegger wrote:

>>
>> It's my understanding that engines with excessive cam-train wear
>> rates are performance engines with flat tappets, high spring rates
>> and high- lift cams. Your average road car has sufficiently developed
>> metallurgy that cam-train wear is not an issue even in the absence of
>> ZDDP.
>>
>
> I share the same assessment and hope that your, er, I'm right.
>
> And then there was that issue of valve seats being a problem when lead
> was removed from gas. That has generally not proven to be the case
> with Studebakers. So far so good..



Again, from extensive reading, it's my impression that valve seat recession
in the absence of TEL occurs primarily in situations that contain some or
all of the following:
high revs;
high spring rates;
high cam lift.

I'm seeing many reports that most standard pre-unleaded road-going engines
are getting by just fine without lead protection. Mind you, most of the
vehicles containing such engines are now considered "classics" and are
generally driven in a very sympathetic manner.

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> highkm <ic3po.TakeThisOut@mac.com> wrote in news:1193149570.334306.98020
>> @v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>> Here's the latest word on 5w20 vs 0w30 viscosity in a 2003 Honda
>>> Accord EX. i am sure that many of you have wondered and read about why
>>> certain companies like Honda and Ford are using 5w20 insead of say
>>> 5w30 or 5w40 as in European cars. Contrary to the popular belief that
>>> Honda used 5w20 to meet CAFE requirements it is mostly due to engine
>>> tolerances.
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip gibberish>
>>
>> You're talking through your hat, Mr. Metric Slave.
>>
>> Below is one of the most critical clearances in any engine, one that
>> has a lot to do with oil pressure and consumption.
>>
>> 1991 Integra, 5W-30 oil specified.
>> Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0017", max .0020"
>>
>> 2003 RSX, 5W-20 oil specified.
>> Crank bearing clearance: .0007"-.0016", max .0020".
>>
>> All the other relevant clearances I can find in my manuals are
>> similarly identical. 5W-20 is specified for CAFE reasons and no other.
>>
>> And just for fun I looked up the same clearance on a 1952 Ford OHV six.
>> .0005"-.0021". Whaddya know. You suppose they were using 5W-20 in 1952?
>>
>>
>
>
> Heh heh heh... It's amazing on how specs for machanical components have
> hardly changed over the years ain't it?
>
> The biggest issue with camshaft wear as far as I can tell is the
> reformulation of engine oils that remove direct contact "cushions."
>
> This is an issue facing a lot of owners of older cars and is yet another
> guv'ment mandate. (I can't speak for youse Canadians though).

Prove that this is a guv'ment mandate.

> To the best of my knowledge, only oils that meet Caterpillar's diesel
> standard still have these ingredients. (Caterpillar uses Shell Rotella
> from what I understand).
>
> But, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this nonsense. I have a few
> extra camshafts (and lifter sets) to keep me runnin' for a few years...
>
> <G>
>
> JT
>
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

Jeff <kidsdoc2000.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hETTi.8077$0l4.4947@trnddc08:

> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

>>
>> This is an issue facing a lot of owners of older cars and is yet
>> another guv'ment mandate. (I can't speak for youse Canadians though).
>
> Prove that this is a guv'ment mandate.



ZDDP was drastically lowered in gasoline motor oils in order to meet
government-imposed warranty requirements on catalytic converter life.
It happened around 1995, with the introduction of
government-imposed OBD-II.




--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

Tegger wrote:

> Jeff <kidsdoc2000.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:hETTi.8077$0l4.4947@trnddc08:
>
>
>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
>>>This is an issue facing a lot of owners of older cars and is yet
>>>another guv'ment mandate. (I can't speak for youse Canadians though).
>>
>>Prove that this is a guv'ment mandate.
>
>
>
>
> ZDDP was drastically lowered in gasoline motor oils in order to meet
> government-imposed warranty requirements on catalytic converter life.
> It happened around 1995, with the introduction of
> government-imposed OBD-II.
>
>

Thanks Tegger... Don'tcha just luv every twerp that comes along and
demands, "cite, cite, cite."

JT

(Back to the jug o' Pinch)
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy RemoveThis @ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in news:JP3Ui.21899
$kj1.9496@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:hETTi.8077$0l4.4947@trnddc08:
>>
>>
>>>Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>This is an issue facing a lot of owners of older cars and is yet
>>>>another guv'ment mandate. (I can't speak for youse Canadians though).
>>>
>>>Prove that this is a guv'ment mandate.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ZDDP was drastically lowered in gasoline motor oils in order to meet
>> government-imposed warranty requirements on catalytic converter life.
>> It happened around 1995, with the introduction of
>> government-imposed OBD-II.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks Tegger... Don'tcha just luv every twerp that comes along and
> demands, "cite, cite, cite."



He'd rather pick a fight than look it up himself.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
 >> Stay informed about: 340,000 KM 2003 Accord Ex Oil Viscosity Issue