y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, your Mustang didn't come with a factory recommendation
> for 5W-20 oil, although I understand that Ford has back-dated their
> recommendation for 5W-20 to some cars as far back as the 1995 model
> year.

Right. Mental slip. The Mustang was originally spec'd for 5w-30, which
was harder to find, but not more expensive. Later the spec was changed to
5w-20. I think I continued with 5w-30.

Still, you only have to find the source once. Mine was "Kragen". Not
exactly hard to locate.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

mike113 wrote:
> Hi, honda recommends to use 5w-20 oil but can i also use 5w-30 oil
> instead. Cause they are easier to find in stores and are cheaper.

Here's one thing to think of. Apparently most 5W-20 oil uses high
levels of molybdenum antiwear compounds to reduce friction and to
prevent metal to metal contact. There's a question as to how quickly
the moly is depleted.

<http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000052004.cfm>

Fuel economy demands, in particular, are expected finally to propel
these oils more deeply into the marketplace. Ford Motor Co. research
cited by Igarashi indicates that 0W-20 engine oil can increase fuel
economy by up to 3 percent over 10W-30 (currently Japan's most popular
engine oil grade).

"However, in order to [make] 0W-20 engine oil, the base oil must be
Group III, or Group IV (polyalphaolefin)." Another driver will be the
use of organic molybdenum as a friction modifier. With molybdenum,
"you can gain friction reductions of up to 10 percent at low engine
speeds. However, a big drawback is the loss of effect over time; the
friction reduction is lost quickly due to additive depletion. By using
Group III or polyalphaolefin base oil, there is better retention of
the friction reducing properties," due to the oils' better oxidative
stability, Igarashi explained.

 

dold@XReXX04Xho.usenet.us.com wrote:
> y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > First of all, your Mustang didn't come with a factory
recommendation
> > for 5W-20 oil, although I understand that Ford has back-dated their
> > recommendation for 5W-20 to some cars as far back as the 1995 model
> > year.
>
> Right. Mental slip. The Mustang was originally spec'd for 5w-30,
which
> was harder to find, but not more expensive. Later the spec was
changed to
> 5w-20. I think I continued with 5w-30.
>
> Still, you only have to find the source once. Mine was "Kragen".
Not
> exactly hard to locate.

Yeah - I've senn 5W-20 at Kragen. I've also seen various
manufacturers' 5W-20 at obscure retailers like "Wal-Mart",
"AutoZone", or "Pep Boys".

 

Sparky Spartacus wrote:
> y_p_w wrote:
> > Sparky Spartacus wrote:
> >
> >>y_p_w wrote:
> >>
> >>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Apparently yes, with the caveat that 5W-30 is OK as an emergency
> >>>backup. However - I don't recall that Honda is recommending 5W-20
> >>>except in North America for the exact same engines.
> >>
> >>Engines for other countries are never *exactly* the same as for the
> >
> > US
> >
> >>market. Hell, engines for the California market are different from
> >
> > the
> >
> >>ones offered in the other 49. It's no longer the case (as it was in
> >
> > the
> >
> >>early years of emission/noise/etc. standards) that the other
markets
> >
> > are
> >
> >>unregulated.
> >
> >
> > In many ways the engines are exactly the same.
>
> Which means they are not exactly the same - my point entirely.

However - my point is that there's nothing special about the engine
design/materials/construction that makes 5W-20 more suitable than
5W-30. Mandating 5W-20 was a business decision.

 

y_p_w wrote:
> Sparky Spartacus wrote:
>
>>y_p_w wrote:
>>
>>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Apparently yes, with the caveat that 5W-30 is OK as an emergency
>>>backup. However - I don't recall that Honda is recommending 5W-20
>>>except in North America for the exact same engines.
>>
>>Engines for other countries are never *exactly* the same as for the
>
> US
>
>>market. Hell, engines for the California market are different from
>
> the
>
>>ones offered in the other 49. It's no longer the case (as it was in
>
> the
>
>>early years of emission/noise/etc. standards) that the other markets
>
> are
>
>>unregulated.
>
>
> In many ways the engines are exactly the same.

Which means they are not exactly the same - my point entirely.

 

Sparky Spartacus wrote:
> y_p_w wrote:
> > Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Apparently yes, with the caveat that 5W-30 is OK as an emergency
> > backup. However - I don't recall that Honda is recommending 5W-20
> > except in North America for the exact same engines.
>
> Engines for other countries are never *exactly* the same as for the
US
> market. Hell, engines for the California market are different from
the
> ones offered in the other 49. It's no longer the case (as it was in
the
> early years of emission/noise/etc. standards) that the other markets
are
> unregulated.

In many ways the engines are exactly the same. I think what's
different
are the emissions control systems. Sure - Honda isn't going to offer
exactly the same engines in all markets, but there are a lot of engines
that are made from the same materials from the same designs. Sure -
one engine might be cast and assembled in Ohio while another is done
in India, but it's still essentially the same engine.

What I'm getting at is that 5W-20 isn't necessarily something that is
hardwired into the engine's design. I really doubt that using 5W-30
is going to kill any brand new Honda engine because of oil problems.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:34:40 -0500, "Steve Bigelow"
> <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@spartacus.galaxy.org> wrote in message
>>news:vzJ0e.1900$Ms2.451@fe12.lga...
>>
>>>And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very
>>>different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race?
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> This year they have to go two races.

Thanks.

> Unless they blow up in the first one.

There's always a loophole!

 

Steve Bigelow wrote:
> "Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@spartacus.galaxy.org> wrote in message
> news:vzJ0e.1900$Ms2.451@fe12.lga...
>
>>And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very
>>different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race?
>
> Nope.

I'll bet they aren't run 100,000 miles, plus, either.

 

y_p_w wrote:
> Gordon McGrew wrote:

<snip>

> Apparently yes, with the caveat that 5W-30 is OK as an emergency
> backup. However - I don't recall that Honda is recommending 5W-20
> except in North America for the exact same engines.

Engines for other countries are never *exactly* the same as for the US
market. Hell, engines for the California market are different from the
ones offered in the other 49. It's no longer the case (as it was in the
early years of emission/noise/etc. standards) that the other markets are
unregulated.

 

TeGGer® wrote:
> gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon McGrew) wrote in
> news:h3l641toc80dvorkjtgtbc33v59src6qt6@4ax.com:
>
>>the penalty for missing the target is $5 per vehicle per 0.1 mpg. So
>>if you are below the mandated 27.5 mpg, a change across the car line
>>that gave you an extra 0.1 mpg would be worth $5 per car. Yeah, I
>>know times 6 million vehicles that's $30 million but this is big
>>business and you are still only talking about $5 on a $20,000 car.
>>And if your CAFE is already 27.5 its worth nothing.
>
> $30 million is $30 million. Doesn't matter what kind of business you're in,
> $30 million OFF YOUR BOTTOM LINE is VERY significant.

The significance varies, of course, depending on the company's bottom
line. Big companies routinely report earnings of more than $1 billion /
quarter[*], so $30 mil/$4 billion = 0.0075, which is fairly small. I'm
not claiming, of course, that any company would take a sack of $30 mil
and toss it out the window or dump it into the ocean. IIRC some auto
manufacturers (Ford comes to mind) have accepted fines/legal judgments
greater than $30 mil because it was cheaper than correcting a problem
with millions of cars.

> Considering that in most businesses about 90% of your gross (or more) ends
> up being bills to be paid, you protect the remaining 10% as best you can,
> hence the existence of 5W-20 part-synthetic.
>
> Who knows how close Honda is to that 27.5 limit?If they slip below, it's an
> instant $30 million tax. Smart businessmen are careful not to let that sort
> of thing happen. It may well be that CAFE is one reason Honda is not
> currently heavily involved in light trucks, and not in V8s. North America,
> primarily the US, is the world's foremost market for large engines with low
> fuel mileage. And the US is the *only* country with any sort of CAFE
> nonsense.

IMHO you're being a little disingenuous here - other countries tax
gasoline/petrol *much* heavier than the US does - enforcing a tougher
CAFE without the need to codify one.

> CAFE costs Ford tens of millions every year, again, right off the bottom
> line. Honda does not want to be Ford; Ford loses money. Honda does not.
>
> It may also be that Honda is planning for further expansion into larger
> vehicles (think Ridgeline), and is banking CAFE credits in preparation for
> that. Honda manufactures most of its large vehicles, like the Odyssey and
> the Ridgeline, in North America, so it has a separate CAFE quota to meet
> for those cars.
>
> Since there is literally no way to predict or plan for the consequences of
> any sort of governmental action, it makes sense for Honda to grab every
> straw that waves its way, since you never know when it might be needed.
> Hence the 5W-20 part-synthetic.
>
> There's also the "green" factor. Honda already is run by safety nuts,

An unfair characterization, IMHO.

[*] Microsoft's Net income for the fourth quarter was $2.69 billion
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnin...rel_q4_04.mspx

GM's 2004 Net Income in (mil.) $2,805.0
http://www.hoovers.com/general-motor...actsheet.xhtml

IBM ARMONK, N.Y., January 18, 2005 . . . IBM today announced ...

It was IBM's strongest fourth quarter ever, with earnings exceeding $3
billion for the first time.

http://www.ibm.com/investor/4q04/4q04earnings.phtml

 

jim beam wrote:
> y_p_w wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >> y_p_w wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> That being said, Honda never redesigned their engines for 5W-20.
The
> >>> "mandating" of 5W-20 was likely more a business decision than an
> >>> engineering choice. The same (or similar) Honda engines sold
elsewhere
> >>> in the world are doing fine on 5W-30 or 10W-30. In a temperate
> >>> climate where I live, it might be fine. If it gets really hot,
I'd
> >>> worry that the oil might be excessively thin. I'd think anyone
who's
> >>> really freaked out, but still wants to follow the 5W-20
recommendation
> >>> might consider installing an aftermarket (fin type) oil cooler.
> >>>
> >> you don't need to reengineer the engine - you reengineer the oil.
as
> >> long as it maintains its film & lubricity in the face of the kinds
of
> >> conditions the 4-ball test doesn't consider, who cares? as far as
i'm
> >> concerned, any oil, dino or syn, that uses the same technology as
that
> >> which can keep a 18,000 rpm, 1,000+ hp, at
> >> i-don't-know-how-many-degrees F1 engine on the track for two hours
is
> >> quite good enough for me thanks very much. "thinness" is
irrelevant.
> >
> >
> > An F1 engine isn't going to be using Pennzoil 5W-20. Last season,
> > the Ferrari team was using Shell Helix F1SL785, which isn't exactly
> > available to the general public.
>
> maybe, but some definitely use mobil 1. istr valvoline being a
> prominent sponsor as well. my point was that the /technology/ used
in
> F1 is still used in ordinary oils.

What I was getting at wasn't the technology, but that the final
product isn't going to be the same. The Ferrari team wasn't using
an off the shelf motor oil in their F1 engines, and its viscosity
was probably too thick for your average street car driven in sub-
desert temps. I wouldn't be surprised if the oil was somehow
preheated.

I doubt there's any technology going into these 5W-20 oils that
one can't find in current off the shelf 5W-30.

> > I was under the impression that among similar oil "chemistries", a
> > higher viscosity (operating temp) oil also has higher film
strength.
>
> i'm not a tribologist, but i don't believe that's true. you can use
air
> as a bearing/lubricant in some applications, so viscosity isn't the
> final factor. as i understand it, the ability of the oil to stick to

> the surface of the material is the key. the additive packages in
some
> modern oils are pretty darned impressive.

I was only thinking it's one of several factors. My understanding is
that all things being equal, a thicker (operating temp) oil will have
a higher thin film strength. Of course not all things are equal. The
API standard for 5W-20 allows for more zinc (compared to 5W-30/10W-30),
and several of the oils in this weight are reputed to contain rather
high levels of molybdenum anti-wear additives.

> > Add extreme conditions (cooling system failure) and the film
strength
> > of a thinner oil may not be enough. Although 5W-20 may be good for
> > most applications, it's still a "once size fits all" solution that
> > seems to be geared towards fuel economy. I still wouldn't use it
> > if I owned a Pilot and was towing a small boat. Maybe 10W-30.
>
> with respect, this is just supposition. i want facts. last time i
was
> in a tire shop, i was listening to a guy make his choice based on
which
> "looked more aggressive". was he a hydrodynamasist? how about
polymer
> scientist? chemist? no. in other words, his was an utterly
uninformed
> decision. when i hear stuff about "thicker is better", i think "tire
dude".

I wasn't thinking "thicker is better" under all circumstances. A good
many automakers do have additional recommendations for extreme
conditions such as towing or desert heat. My latest owner's manual
says to use straight weight (30 or 40), 20W-40, or 20W-50 in such
cases, when 5W-30 is the recommended year-round oil for normal driving
conditions. If I lived in Arizona, I'd probably just junk all that
and use Mobil 1 10W-30 year round, and throw in a yearly oil analysis
to make sure it was working OK. I just sent a sample to Blackstone
Labs this week.

 

dold@XReXX04Xho.usenet.us.com wrote:
> mike113 <michael_yu8@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi, honda recommends to use 5w-20 oil but can i also use 5w-30 oil
> > instead. Cause they are easier to find in stores and are cheaper.
>
> I had a little trouble finding 5w-20 for my Mustang in 1996, but I
> did. My 2003 Civic calls for 0w-20, and that's what I use. That's
> even harder to find, but you only have to find the source once.

First of all, your Mustang didn't come with a factory recommendation
for 5W-20 oil, although I understand that Ford has back-dated their
recommendation for 5W-20 to some cars as far back as the 1995 model
year.

Actually - 0W-20 is now near impossible to find. Mobil has
discontinued Mobil 1 0W-20. They may still be making it for Honda,
and you might be able to find it at a dealer. Sounds like you've
got the Civic Hybrid. The Honda labelled 0W-20 was selling for
$6/quart at one local dealer (I asked).

> My '96 Mustang had 120,000 miles on 5w-20 oil when I sold it.
> My '00 Durango had 91,000 miles on 5w-20 oil when I sold it.
> My '03 Civic has 40,000 miles on 0w-20 oil.
>
> I change oil at the factory recommended normal service intervals.
>
> So longevity with 5w-20 doesn't seem to be the issue. I haven't
> noticed the price, but the 5w-20 seemed to be the same as other
> weights.

It was a problem at first. The first brands of 5W-20 I saw on store
shelves (Pennzoil and Motorcraft) were selling for slightly more than
their 5W-30 or 10W-30 equivalents.

 

mike113 <michael_yu8@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, honda recommends to use 5w-20 oil but can i also use 5w-30 oil instead.
> Cause they are easier to find in stores and are cheaper.

I had a little trouble finding 5w-20 for my Mustang in 1996, but I did.
My 2003 Civic calls for 0w-20, and that's what I use.
That's even harder to find, but you only have to find the source once.

My '96 Mustang had 120,000 miles on 5w-20 oil when I sold it.
My '00 Durango had 91,000 miles on 5w-20 oil when I sold it.
My '03 Civic has 40,000 miles on 0w-20 oil.

I change oil at the factory recommended normal service intervals.

So longevity with 5w-20 doesn't seem to be the issue. I haven't noticed
the price, but the 5w-20 seemed to be the same as other weights.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2005 01:10:35 GMT, "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote:
>
> >Since there is literally no way to predict or plan for the
> >consequences of any sort of governmental action, it makes sense
> >for Honda to grab every straw that waves its way, since you never
> >know when it might be needed. Hence the 5W-20 part-synthetic.
>
> Not sure I understand this. What is the part-syhnthetic?

Apparently most of the 5W-20 oil (even the ones sold as "conventional")
contain higher quality base oil. It may be PAO or a higher quality
hydrocracked petroleum oil (which is sometimes marketed as "synthetic"
these days). They might also boost certain other antiwear additives
to compensate for the thinness at operating temps. It might cost more
to make a properly formulated 5W-20, but I suppose it can be absorbed
across the entire lineup of oil weights.

> Does Honda require that in 5W-20?

Apparently yes, with the caveat that 5W-30 is OK as an emergency
backup. However - I don't recall that Honda is recommending 5W-20
except in North America for the exact same engines.

> Is that why someone was saying it was "only"
> an extra $1 per quart? It sounds like Honda is just inefficiently
> transferring costs to its customers. Wouldn't you prefer that Honda
> just charge you $5 (or $15) dollars more for the car than get hit for
> a $1 on every quart of oil? (You might recover a third of that $1 on
> fuel savings but you won't notice that.)

Most of the 5W-20 oil I've seen on store shelves recently doesn't
command a premium over the other offerings in the same "product
line". OTOH - it's hard to find the 5W-20 in many of the cheaper
brands.

I rented a Mazda 6 last Dec. They actually took it to a quickie
lube place and the sticker specifically said they used Mobil 5W-20.
Newer Mazdas come with a 5W-20 recommendation similar to Ford's.

 

"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g7P0e.3448$gI5.2424@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>
> Steve Bigelow wrote:
>> "Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@spartacus.galaxy.org> wrote in message
>> news:vzJ0e.1900$Ms2.451@fe12.lga...
>>
>>>And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very
>>>different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race?
>>
>>
>> Nope.
>
> I believe engine rebuilds occurred in the past. I recall reading
> and article in AutoWeek about Ferrari selling several of their
> used F1 cars for a cool $2M each. Apparently each engine had a
> service life of 300 miles, which could be doubled if the rev limiter
> was dropped 1000 RPM. Most F1 races are under 200 miles I believe.
>
> I seem to recall there are (or it was proposed) rules that an F1
> engine must be able to last an entire race weekend, including
> qualifying.

Two races this year.

 

Steve Bigelow wrote:
> "Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@spartacus.galaxy.org> wrote in message
> news:vzJ0e.1900$Ms2.451@fe12.lga...
>
>>And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very
>>different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race?
>
>
> Nope.

I believe engine rebuilds occurred in the past. I recall reading
and article in AutoWeek about Ferrari selling several of their
used F1 cars for a cool $2M each. Apparently each engine had a
service life of 300 miles, which could be doubled if the rev limiter
was dropped 1000 RPM. Most F1 races are under 200 miles I believe.

I seem to recall there are (or it was proposed) rules that an F1
engine must be able to last an entire race weekend, including
qualifying.

 

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:34:40 -0500, "Steve Bigelow"
<stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:

>
>"Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@spartacus.galaxy.org> wrote in message
>news:vzJ0e.1900$Ms2.451@fe12.lga...
>> And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very
>> different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race?
>
>Nope.

This year they have to go two races. Unless they blow up in the first
one.

 

On 25 Mar 2005 01:10:35 GMT, "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote:

>gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (Gordon McGrew) wrote in
>news:h3l641toc80dvorkjtgtbc33v59src6qt6@4ax.com :
>
>
>>
>> the penalty for missing the target is $5 per vehicle per 0.1 mpg. So
>> if you are below the mandated 27.5 mpg, a change across the car line
>> that gave you an extra 0.1 mpg would be worth $5 per car. Yeah, I
>> know times 6 million vehicles that's $30 million but this is big
>> business and you are still only talking about $5 on a $20,000 car.
>> And if your CAFE is already 27.5 its worth nothing.
>
>
>
>$30 million is $30 million. Doesn't matter what kind of business you're in,
>$30 million OFF YOUR BOTTOM LINE is VERY significant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they don't just throw $30 million away.
But, when your profit is about $5B, it is less than 1% - not VERY
significant in my judgement.

>Considering that in most businesses about 90% of your gross (or more) ends
>up being bills to be paid, you protect the remaining 10% as best you can,
>hence the existence of 5W-20 part-synthetic.
>
>Who knows how close Honda is to that 27.5 limit?If they slip below, it's an
>instant $30 million tax. Smart businessmen are careful not to let that sort
>of thing happen. It may well be that CAFE is one reason Honda is not
>currently heavily involved in light trucks, and not in V8s. North America,
>primarily the US, is the world's foremost market for large engines with low
>fuel mileage. And the US is the *only* country with any sort of CAFE
>nonsense.

The system could be easily fixed but it would require the political
will to do so. The big car companies didn't want it to change so it
hasn't. But the big car companies (you know the two I mean) are
getting smaller and they may be overruled some day. Or maybe gas will
go to $6 a gallon and make CAFE irrelevant.

>CAFE costs Ford tens of millions every year, again, right off the bottom
>line. Honda does not want to be Ford; Ford loses money. Honda does not.

IMO, the reason Honda makes money is that Honda looks forward beyond
the next quarter. Saving $5 a car today is not worth pissing off even
1% of your customers. That's why I wouldn't be worried about running
5W-20 in a Honda that specified it. Higher price and limited
availability would piss me off a little though.

Ford loses money because they are greedy bastards. They will burn you
to death for $5 a car. Great in the short run but it tends to
discourage repeat purchases.

>It may also be that Honda is planning for further expansion into larger
>vehicles (think Ridgeline), and is banking CAFE credits in preparation for
>that. Honda manufactures most of its large vehicles, like the Odyssey and
>the Ridgeline, in North America, so it has a separate CAFE quota to meet
>for those cars.

Don't be naive, its much more complex than that. Ody, Pilot,
Ridgeline are all trucks built in NA. As such they are separate from
cars. And they may even be separate from each other if some are
domestic and others are import. But, you say, they are all made in
North America. They could still be either domestic or import
depending on whether domestic content exceeds 75%. By manipulating
the sourcing of a few parts you can flip NA factory output from
domestic to import and back again to manipulate your numbers. Of
course the ultimate dodge would be a Honda Suburban which is not even
covered by CAFE.

But, 0.1 mpg is still only worth $5 per car.

>Since there is literally no way to predict or plan for the consequences of
>any sort of governmental action, it makes sense for Honda to grab every
>straw that waves its way, since you never know when it might be needed.
>Hence the 5W-20 part-synthetic.

Not sure I understand this. What is the part-syhnthetic? Does Honda
require that in 5W-20? Is that why someone was saying it was "only"
an extra $1 per quart? It sounds like Honda is just inefficiently
transferring costs to its customers. Wouldn't you prefer that Honda
just charge you $5 (or $15) dollars more for the car than get hit for
a $1 on every quart of oil? (You might recover a third of that $1 on
fuel savings but you won't notice that.)

>There's also the "green" factor. Honda already is run by safety nuts, and
>they've been proponents of the "green" thing since CVCC days. I wouldn't be
>surprised if Honda is trying for that last 0.1mpg on philosophical grounds.

Heh heh, I wonder if it was the safety nuts or the greens that set the
Accord Hybrid to be the fastest model in the Accord lineup.

I don't doubt that Honda has more of a soul than most car companies
but I don't think they are quite as zen as to want their tree to crash
in the forest if no one hears it. Honda has made great advances in
safety and environment but they usually don't hide their efforts.

 

"Sparky Spartacus" <Sparky@spartacus.galaxy.org> wrote in message
news:vzJ0e.1900$Ms2.451@fe12.lga...
> And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very
> different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race?

Nope.

 

y_p_w wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>y_p_w wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>y_p_w wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That being said, Honda never redesigned their engines for 5W-20.
>
> The
>
>>>>>"mandating" of 5W-20 was likely more a business decision than an
>>>>>engineering choice. The same (or similar) Honda engines sold
>
> elsewhere
>
>>>>>in the world are doing fine on 5W-30 or 10W-30. In a temperate
>>>>>climate where I live, it might be fine. If it gets really hot,
>
> I'd
>
>>>>>worry that the oil might be excessively thin. I'd think anyone
>
> who's
>
>>>>>really freaked out, but still wants to follow the 5W-20
>
> recommendation
>
>>>>>might consider installing an aftermarket (fin type) oil cooler.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>you don't need to reengineer the engine - you reengineer the oil.
>
> as
>
>>>>long as it maintains its film & lubricity in the face of the kinds
>
> of
>
>>>>conditions the 4-ball test doesn't consider, who cares? as far as
>
> i'm
>
>>>>concerned, any oil, dino or syn, that uses the same technology as
>
> that
>
>>>>which can keep a 18,000 rpm, 1,000+ hp, at
>>>>i-don't-know-how-many-degrees F1 engine on the track for two hours
>
> is
>
>>>>quite good enough for me thanks very much. "thinness" is
>
> irrelevant.
>
>>>
>>>An F1 engine isn't going to be using Pennzoil 5W-20. Last season,
>>>the Ferrari team was using Shell Helix F1SL785, which isn't exactly
>>>available to the general public.
>>
>>maybe, but some definitely use mobil 1. istr valvoline being a
>>prominent sponsor as well. my point was that the /technology/ used
>
> in
>
>>F1 is still used in ordinary oils.
>
>
> What I was getting at wasn't the technology, but that the final
> product isn't going to be the same. The Ferrari team wasn't using
> an off the shelf motor oil in their F1 engines, and its viscosity
> was probably too thick for your average street car driven in sub-
> desert temps. I wouldn't be surprised if the oil was somehow
> preheated.
>
> I doubt there's any technology going into these 5W-20 oils that
> one can't find in current off the shelf 5W-30.
>
>
>>>I was under the impression that among similar oil "chemistries", a
>>>higher viscosity (operating temp) oil also has higher film
>
> strength.
>
>>i'm not a tribologist, but i don't believe that's true. you can use
>
> air
>
>>as a bearing/lubricant in some applications, so viscosity isn't the
>>final factor. as i understand it, the ability of the oil to stick to
>
>
>>the surface of the material is the key. the additive packages in
>
> some
>
>>modern oils are pretty darned impressive.
>
>
> I was only thinking it's one of several factors. My understanding is
> that all things being equal, a thicker (operating temp) oil will have
> a higher thin film strength. Of course not all things are equal. The
> API standard for 5W-20 allows for more zinc (compared to 5W-30/10W-30),
> and several of the oils in this weight are reputed to contain rather
> high levels of molybdenum anti-wear additives.
>
>
>>>Add extreme conditions (cooling system failure) and the film
>
> strength
>
>>>of a thinner oil may not be enough. Although 5W-20 may be good for
>>>most applications, it's still a "once size fits all" solution that
>>>seems to be geared towards fuel economy. I still wouldn't use it
>>>if I owned a Pilot and was towing a small boat. Maybe 10W-30.
>>
>>with respect, this is just supposition. i want facts. last time i
>
> was
>
>>in a tire shop, i was listening to a guy make his choice based on
>
> which
>
>>"looked more aggressive". was he a hydrodynamasist? how about
>
> polymer
>
>>scientist? chemist? no. in other words, his was an utterly
>
> uninformed
>
>>decision. when i hear stuff about "thicker is better", i think "tire
>
> dude".
>
> I wasn't thinking "thicker is better" under all circumstances. A good
> many automakers do have additional recommendations for extreme
> conditions such as towing or desert heat. My latest owner's manual
> says to use straight weight (30 or 40), 20W-40, or 20W-50 in such
> cases, when 5W-30 is the recommended year-round oil for normal driving
> conditions. If I lived in Arizona, I'd probably just junk all that
> and use Mobil 1 10W-30 year round, and throw in a yearly oil analysis
> to make sure it was working OK. I just sent a sample to Blackstone
> Labs this week.
>
oil analysis is a /very/ smart thing to do every now & then!