5-20 oil

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
>
>>>5w20 is being recommended by lots of automakers in their North
>>>American-market vehicles for fuel economy certification reasons. The
>>>same engines in the same cars often call for 5w30 in other markets.
>>>This does not mean older vehicles should be switched to 5w20.
>>
>>This sounds reasonable. But I would say it is not working. My T&C with
>>a 3.8 engine gets horrible mileage in city driving, under 15mpg. On the
>>highway it does ok, about 24mpg.
>
>
> Not the point -- the point is to squeak another fraction of an MPG in on
> the Federal fuel economy and emission certification tests, NOT to offer
> the consumer measurably better on-road fuel mileage.

And way secondary to the squeezing of another fraction of an MPG is
improving engine life. Not that it will necessarily lead to
catastrophic failure or gross reduction in useful life, but there is
bound to be incremental cost in engine life. IOW, will they do put
value on engine life, when they get an opportunity to trade off a
miniscule gain in MPG for slight or moderate loss in engine life, they
will take it. Compare that the manufacturer's recommendations in
countries with similar ambient temperatures that don't have CAFE rules
are for thicker oils(we're talking similar vehicle/identical engine.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

Bill Putney wrote:

Mis-typed - should have said:

> ...IOW, **while** they do put
> value on engine life, when they get an opportunity to trade off a
> miniscule gain in MPG for slight or moderate loss in engine life, they
> will take it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

kmatheson RemoveThis @sisna.com wrote:


>
> Do new 3.3 and 3.8's have tighter clearances than their predecessors,
> or is is the 5w20 recommended only for the purpose of improving fuel
> economy?

No, they don't have any different clearances. In fact, the only engines
on the market today that have any significantly tighter clerances than a
1966 engine are the ones fitted with hypereutectic pistons. Two things
are happening- 1) gas mileage requirements are getting harder to meet
and lighter weight oil helps, 2) oil technology has advanced a WHOLE
lot, so that thin oils can now remain stable and protect as well or
better than much thicker oils used to be able to.
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:34:50 -0500, Steve <no DeleteThis @spam.thanks> wrote:

>kmatheson@sisna.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Do new 3.3 and 3.8's have tighter clearances than their predecessors,
>> or is is the 5w20 recommended only for the purpose of improving fuel
>> economy?
>
>No, they don't have any different clearances. In fact, the only engines
>on the market today that have any significantly tighter clerances than a
>1966 engine are the ones fitted with hypereutectic pistons. Two things
>are happening- 1) gas mileage requirements are getting harder to meet
>and lighter weight oil helps, 2) oil technology has advanced a WHOLE
>lot, so that thin oils can now remain stable and protect as well or
>better than much thicker oils used to be able to.

And today's thicher oils? They have advanced as well.
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern.DeleteThis@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0507200022580.8063@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 kmatheson.DeleteThis@sisna.com wrote:
> >
> > > Do new 3.3 and 3.8's have tighter clearances than their predecessors,
> >
> > No. Engine internal clearances haven't changed significantly in the last
> > four decades.
> >
> > > or is is the 5w20 recommended only for the purpose of improving fuel
> > > economy?
> >
> > Correct.
>
> And I would also be concerned with longevity - it seems to me there's a
> fundamental tradeoff operating here. You can get best lubricating longevity
> or best fuel economy, but not both. Seems like good old 10W-30 was
> the recommended fill for most of those last four decades.
>
> Ted

I just checked the repair records of a Voyager that has close to
200,000 miles and a tight 3.0 Liter engine. It's quite tight and not
burning oil, touch wood. Turns out the recommended oil is 5W-30 but
this car was serviced a lot at a Jiffy Lube that used, instead 10W-30,
so one weight heavier than recommended.

I suspect since this car did mostly highway driving on the turnpike
that the heavier oil than recommended was most likely a good thing. I'm
not using 5W-30 since it's being used mostly for short trips so startup
wear and tear is a main concern and it definitely starts up easier with
5W-30.

If I go back to highway driving, I would be tempted to go to 10W-30
which is a tighter oil, fewer grades differential between 10 and 30
compared to 5 and 30. What complicates this for me is that the dealer
is using a semi-synthetic of 5W-30 which seems much better than the
usual dinosaur oils, a Conoco brand of some type. The car is not using
as much oil. Hope it's not hurting the seal and whammo am I going to be
suprised in a year or so.
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

nospam.clare.nce RemoveThis @sny.der.on.ca wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:34:50 -0500, Steve <no RemoveThis @spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>
>>kmatheson@sisna.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Do new 3.3 and 3.8's have tighter clearances than their predecessors,
>>>or is is the 5w20 recommended only for the purpose of improving fuel
>>>economy?
>>
>>No, they don't have any different clearances. In fact, the only engines
>>on the market today that have any significantly tighter clerances than a
>>1966 engine are the ones fitted with hypereutectic pistons. Two things
>>are happening- 1) gas mileage requirements are getting harder to meet
>>and lighter weight oil helps, 2) oil technology has advanced a WHOLE
>>lot, so that thin oils can now remain stable and protect as well or
>>better than much thicker oils used to be able to.
>
>
> And today's thicher oils? They have advanced as well.

Yes, but its always best practice to use the *thinnest* oil that
provides adequate protection. Too thick and the flow rate and therefore
cooling is compromised.
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

That's interesting and sort of my experience. I remember one car,
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of miles, /6. When it got bad, I
used to buy that racing oil, Kendall SAE 50. Not suppoed to work but it
sure did bring up the compression. What a Plymouth!

But I gather you're talking mostly about highway miles at faster
speeds, like 60 mph and better, yes? I'm starting to favor
semi-synthetic 5W-30 because it's not getting burned up as fast and I'm
doing a lot of short hops which means starting the engine is my main
concern.

But in the past, I used to go with 20W-50, 10W-40, and so on, even SAE
30, kind of mix my own.

Come to think of it, I've had cars where the engine was still good,
just the rest of the car was self-destructing. Boy is that annoying.
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:30:35 -0500, Steve <no.DeleteThis@spam.thanks> wrote:

>nospam.clare.nce@sny.der.on.ca wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:34:50 -0500, Steve <no.DeleteThis@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>kmatheson@sisna.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do new 3.3 and 3.8's have tighter clearances than their predecessors,
>>>>or is is the 5w20 recommended only for the purpose of improving fuel
>>>>economy?
>>>
>>>No, they don't have any different clearances. In fact, the only engines
>>>on the market today that have any significantly tighter clerances than a
>>>1966 engine are the ones fitted with hypereutectic pistons. Two things
>>>are happening- 1) gas mileage requirements are getting harder to meet
>>>and lighter weight oil helps, 2) oil technology has advanced a WHOLE
>>>lot, so that thin oils can now remain stable and protect as well or
>>>better than much thicker oils used to be able to.
>>
>>
>> And today's thicher oils? They have advanced as well.
>
>Yes, but its always best practice to use the *thinnest* oil that
>provides adequate protection. Too thick and the flow rate and therefore
>cooling is compromised.


How "thick" is 20W50 oil at 210F? Compared to 5W30 at 32F? A WHOLE lot
thinner. And what is "adequate" protection? According to the
manufacturer it is good enough to get something like 95% of engines
through warranty without detectable damage.
To me, adequate protection means good enough to reach 300,000Km or
more without detectable damage. Big difference.

Last Aerostar had 240,000KM on the clock when I sold it over 3 years
ago - 10W40 and 20W50 exclusively from 45,000km on - (when the engine
was changed under warranty for a skuffed piston - 3W30 oil used by
original owner when serviced by selling dealer). Still going strong -
current owner very happy with it - uses NO oil between changes.
Towed 17 foot travel trailer

First Aerostar ran exclusively on 10W40 and 20w50 Castrol GTX - had
240,000 more or less on it when I sold it to a friend - who drove it
another 6 years.The body fell off, and the engine was still running
strong - burning no oil between changes.
Towed 17 foot travel trailer.

Last NewYorker 3.0 had 240,000 KM on it when I sold it last summer.
Heads were replaced twice for guide problems (dropped and loose) but
with heads replaced used no oil between changes - run exclusively on
10W40 and 20W50 oil.

Last LeBaron T&C 2.6 (1985) was purchased with a blown engine
(countershafts seized - stripped crank sprocket and spun main bearing)
at 99,000Km.Was run on 10W30 oil. I rebuilt the engine, and ran 10W40
and 20W50 oil in it 'till the body fell off (aprox 225,000Km IIRC). I
sold the engine to another LeBaron owner in 1994 and it was still on
the road last year, running strong with no timing chain noises.

My 1981 Tercel, which I serviced from new with 10W40 and 20W50 was
traded in at just under 200,000KM - when I bought it with some minor
body damage. I sold it with almost 300,000KM on it - and the new owner
was still driving it a year after the speedo quit at 460,000KM, more
or less. He said it was the best vehicle he had ever owned, other than
the body which eventually just rotted away around him. Never added oil
between changes. HE NEVER TOUCHED THE ENGINE EXCEPT TO REPLACE ONE SET
OF POINTS AND ADJUST THE VALVES.

10W40 and 20W50 worked fine for me, and for my customers.

Don't know what oil was used in my daughter's 96 Neon before she got
it - but it consistently uses 1 - 1 1/2 liters of oil between changes
at 165,000 Km. Doesnt much matter what oil I put in it.

I've never had viscosity change problems with the 10W40 and 20W50 oils
I've used - but virtually never went over 6000Km on an oil change.

I HAVE had viscosity loss problems with 5W30 (Penzoil) in a company
owned Dodge minivan less than 100 miles after the oil change - the oil
light came on while on the highway - the dipstick showed full - so I
had the oil changed AGAIN and put "real oil" in it (Castrol GTX) and
the light went out. The tech who changed the oil said what came out
was thin as kerosene.

You can buy your brand new vehicles, and service them by the book for
2 years or so, and trade them in. I'll buy said low mileage used car,
put whatever oil I please in it, and drive it another 10 years or so
(till the body or the wheels fall off, or I just get tired of driving
the same old car) and reluctantly send the still running engine to the
scrap-yard if I can't find somebody who wants to buy it cheap.

Something like 25 or 26 vehicles now, and I've never blown an engine.
Only sold one with less than 160,000Km (100,000 miles) on it.
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

nospam.clare.nce DeleteThis @sny.der.on.ca wrote:


> You are right - to a point. Oil provides a hydrodynamic "wedge" that
> is most drfinitely viscosity related. This is more important in
> non-pressurized systems - the same systems where higher viscosity can
> be a problem because the oil cannot flow into the bearing surface as
> well.
> Where higher viscosity oils ARE a definite advantage is on engines
> with timing CHAINS instead of belts. The longer the chain and the more
> tensioners, the more effect viscosity has on life. A typical example
> is the 2.6 Mitsubishi. 2 chains - one for the cam and one for the
> balance shafts and oil pump. The second chain is roughly 6 feet long.
> Run a 2.6 of 5W30 (or 10W30) and use the "normal" change interval and
> you can be guaranteed a noizy engine before 80,000Km (50,000 miles).
> Use either heavier oil or the "extreme" oil change schedule, and you
> will stretch the life to something over 120,000Km. Do both, and the
> chains and tensioners just keep going, and going, and going.

Thanks for that info. which I didn't know. Good to know for my 2.7L
(with timing chain) - glad I decided to go with slightly heavier oil
than recommended but for other reasons.

> ...Camshaft wear is another place where heavier oils can and do reduce
> wear.Chevy 307 (in particular, but other SBCs of the same vintage,
> generally)engines run on 5W30 oil had LOTS of problems with cam lobes
> going round. Those run on heavier oil tended to last longer before the
> inevitable happened.

I know that GM was known for years for their nitrided cams wearing like
butter once the very then nitride layer wore thru - was that the problem
there? Sometimes a special cause like that forces you to compromise
decisions like oil weight - IOW, if the cams were not a special problem,
perhaps (perhaps not) things would have been better overall to go with
slightly thinner oil.

> ...Same with the early Pinto/Bobcat/Mustang 2 2200
> and 2300 engines.
>
> I don't have an axe to grind here - use whatever oil you like, and be
> willing to live with the consequenses.

My philosophy exactly.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

Bill Putney wrote:

> ...nitrided cams wearing like
> butter once the very then nitride layer wore thru...

"...very THIN nitride layer..."

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

nospam.clare.nce.TakeThisOut@sny.der.on.ca wrote:

> Same with the 8R, 18R, 18RC series engines on the early Corona, Celica
> and Hilux. When I worked for the dealership in the late sixties /
> early seventies we used the recommended (at that time) 1W30 oil. I
> replaced several timing chains and tensioners on R and M series
> engines.

This was a regular, dinosaur oil, this 1W30? Do you think using
a semi-synthetic or even today's dinosaur with the latest ratings,
SM?, would give the same dismal results, in your opinion?
That's an awfully wide band to maintain more than 25 years ago,
if I understood you correctly. I am not surprised that it was
a disaster. I talked with another shop manager, and he said the
same thing. Just keep the grades narrow and he even thought
10W-40 was too wide a separation.

> In Africa, nobody would THINK of using less than a 10W40, or straight
> 30 weight oil in those engines - and unless you knocked a hole in the
> oil pan the engines were pretty well bulletproof (not like the 3R/5r
> Corona engines) That's when I started looking seriously at heavier
> oils for "normal " use. I had always used the heavier oils in my
> higher mileage used cars previously (20W50 in the slant six Darts and
> Valiants, as well as the 850 Mini (which ran straight 50 before
> rebuilding at about 200,000 miles) In the Mini, the engine oil was
> also the tranny oil, and the diff oil.

These were Toyota LandCrusiers or what engines? Is it still this way?
It's pretty hot there in places and they go long distances, so
stop and go is not their concern, I would guess.

> Camshaft wear is another place where heavier oils can and do reduce
> wear.Chevy 307 (in particular, but other SBCs of the same vintage,
> generally)engines run on 5W30 oil had LOTS of problems with cam lobes
> going round. Those run on heavier oil tended to last longer before the
> inevitable happened. Same with the early Pinto/Bobcat/Mustang 2 2200
> and 2300 engines.

I'm using a 5W30 oil, semi-synthetic, ConocoPhillips/Kendall on an
engine that has almost 200,000 miles, that is, ~320,000 kilometers.
Original engine presumably, at least for the last 130,000 miles.

So far, engine is fine. Hear valve tapping for about 1 minute,
sometimesl
on startup and need an oxygen sensor replaced but the timing belt looks
fine. I preferred a heavier 10W-30 with fewer separations, just what,
two grades here 10 to 30 or three grades all told. The car has
generally gotten a 10W-30 oil, 1994 Plymouth 3.0L Mitsubishi Voyager.
But it's getting older. I was startled to find, unless I am wrong,
this car's dipstick is notoriously difficult to read, the 5W-30
is not being consumed as much as the 10W-30. In 2,000 miles, I don't
think I really even needed to add a quart. With 10W-30, I usually
added one quart every 1500 miles. Oil is changed every 3000 miles.

Do you have any thoughts in this case, on 5W-30 semi-synthetic
versus dinosaur 10W-30? The dinosaur oil has often the higher grade,
though, SM, versus, SL for the semi-synthetic oils, when I look at
some of them in the stores.

I'm thinking about this since I used to consider that
10W-30 was too light. I did not really like 10W-40 because it
was four grades combined, but the oils are getting better I'm
told.
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

treeline12345 DeleteThis @yahoo.com wrote:

> nospam.clare.nce DeleteThis @sny.der.on.ca wrote:

> ...we used the recommended (at that time) 1W30 oil. I
>>replaced several timing chains and tensioners on R and M series
>>engines.
>
> This was a regular, dinosaur oil, this 1W30?...

Something tells me he meant 10W-30.

> Do you have any thoughts in this case, on 5W-30 semi-synthetic
> versus dinosaur 10W-30?...

It's impossible to say anything about a commercial semi-synthetic since
you don't know the mix of synth to non-synth - which is why I refuse to
buy those. Better you mix your own so you know technically what you've
got and what you're paying for - there are those experts who claim that
there are some synergistic benefits of a blend over straight synth. To
me, it would be just way too tempting for the MBA's to have them sell
you 15 synth/85 non-synth and charge you an 85 synth/15 non-synth price.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil 

nospam.clare.nce.DeleteThis@sny.der.on.ca wrote:

> Where higher viscosity oils ARE a definite advantage is on engines
> with timing CHAINS instead of belts.

<snip>


> Camshaft wear is another place where heavier oils can and do reduce
> wear.Chevy 307 (in particular, but other SBCs of the same vintage,
> generally)engines run on 5W30 oil had LOTS of problems with cam lobes
> going round. Those run on heavier oil tended to last longer before the
> inevitable happened. Same with the early Pinto/Bobcat/Mustang 2 2200
> and 2300 engines.

Again, I'd say that there are other ways to solve those problems than
increasing viscosity (like don't buy Shove-a-lot engines...
Seriously, in the case of timing chains, distributor drive gears, gear
driven oil pumps, and slider-type camshafts, the single most critical
component of the oil chemistry is zinc content. A thin oil with a big
dose of ZDDP additive would, IMO, be far better than a thick oil with
less ZDDP. Thats exactly the reason I like the new Mobil "extended life"
oils- they have higher loadings of ZDDP and other additives than the
standard Mobil 1. It means they don't get the latest API rating because
the API wants oil makers to cut back on those additives (because they
can potentially damage catalysts and they aren't needed as much in new
roller-cam engines with timing belts or roller timing chains and no gear
drives) but it makes them a great oil for older engines with gears,
non-roller timing chains, and slider cams.
 >> Stay informed about: 5-20 oil