SAE 5W20 for new car?

First oil change for new car needed soon. To my surprise the manual recommends SAE5W20. I didn't know they made that grade. Seems very light. Seems to me that SAE5W30 would be OK. Opinions?

Reply to
noway
Loading thread data ...

Seems to me the engine engineers might know better than you.

It's available.

And yes, 5W-30 will work.

Reply to
Stephen Bigelow

My Lincoln Continental calls for 5W20 and I thought the same. Seems kind of light especially for a 280hp, 32 valve V-8. I checked into it and found out that it is a semi-senthetic motor oil. Like all multi weight oils, when its cold it remains thin for easy starting andd when it heats up it seems to thicken for premium viscosity. You should read up on "Motocrafts 5W20"

Reply to
rtaylor

And what makes you think the engineers made the decision to change from the old recommendation to the new?? Do you suppose "management" might have had a hand in it from the standpoint of "we can get an extra 0.2% gas mileage, which will help our fleet average, and even if the engines have 10% more wear they will be long out of warranty way before the 10% shows up."

Reply to
AZGuy

Well here is my opinion Copied fropm an older post):

Current Ford owner's guides say something like -

"SAE 5W-20 engine oil is recommended.

"Only use oils ?Certified For Gasoline Engines? by the AmericanPetroleum Institute (API). Use Motorcraft or an equivalent oil meeting Ford specification WSS-M2C153?H. SAE 5W-20 oil provides optimum fuel economy and durability performance meeting all requirements for your vehicle's engine."

There is a lot of misinformation about 5W20 Oil. Why do you think you need thicker oil? Can you cite a single study that suggests that your engine will live longer if you run 5W30 instead of the correct grade of

5W20? I browsed several SAE papers on this subject. The only paper that cast any doubt on 5W20 oil was written by GM engineers and it if was not really negative. It was a paper that was comparing theoretical bearing film thickness to experimentally determined bearing film thickness. As you would expect, in theory 5W20 provided less bearing film thickness than 5W30, which provided less than 15W40, which provided less than 50W. The important question is, does 5W20 provide enough bearing film thickness? Apparently the engineers at Ford have determined that it does for most of their recent engines (the one notable exception is the 4.0L used in Explorers and Rangers). Everyone agrees that 5W20 oil provides slightly better fuel economy. This implies that it is also reduces heat generation inside the engine - a good thing. There are at least two Japanese SAE papers that state that 5W20 oil had no negative effects on engine wear.

In general the biggest problem in extending oil drain intervals for engines in good condition is the tendency of oil to increase in viscosity with age and use (as long as contamination from blow by is not a problem).

Personally, I don't think 5W30 will hurt your engine. 15W40 won't hurt your engine either - if you are in a warm climate. However, I doubt they are going to improve the life of your engine by a measurable amount.

Ford did not make significant changes in their engines between 2000 when they universally recommended 5W30 (except for diesels) and 2001 when they started recommending 5W20 for most engines.

Back in the early days of the 4.6L V-8 there was a problem with using

15W40 in colder climates. According to Ford TSB 94-11-7: "The use of engine oil with higher than specified viscosity (5W30/10W30) may cause oil filter "ballooning" and subsequent loss of engine oil. Higher viscosity oils may cause oil pump relief valve bore wear. This causes the relief valve to stick, resulting in excessive system oil pressure and a blown oil filter." This problem was fixed in 1994 and as far as I know there are currently no issues with using 15W40 in any Ford engine. I have always used 15W40 in my 1992 F150 and even used it for a while in my 1997 Expedition with no adverse effects.

As for protecting your warranty - I doubt that using 5W30 instead of

5W20 will have any effect on your warranty. When I first bought my 2001 Mustang, 5W20 oil was hard to find. I inquired at my dealer about how to proceed. They told me they just used 5W30. I used 5W30 Mobil 1 for a couple of oil changes but then found a convenient source for the Motorcraft 5W20 Synthetic Blend and I have been using that ever since.

One more thing - Mobil is offering a 0W20 Full Synthetic that meets all the appropriate certifications and grades. The only Amsoil 5W20 oil with API certification is a "Syntec-like" oil ("syntec-like" = highly refined group III petroleum base stock, not a true synthetic as far as I am concerned).

Regards,

Ed White

Reply to
C. E. White

The Mfg.s are wanting to get the max. gas miles and if the manual says you can use it and you are operating the auto in the Temp. range the manual is stating. it's ok. Again using the 5/30 would not cause a problem. My only suggestion would be to use a synthetic oil like Mobil 1 this is what I use in all my autos and trucks. Temp. does not effect the synthetic's ability to do their job. ronm

noway wrote:

Reply to
ronm

That sounds like something Ford or GM would do, but why would Honda need to resort to that? Honda has no problems meeting mileage standards, and even if they did they boost their mileage by reprogramming their computers because so many of them currently meet ultra-low emissions standards.

Reply to
do_not_spam_me

Lets say you are in the auto business and you have the usual assortment of people nipping at your heels over how cars are ruining the planet. Wouldn't it be good PR to start recommending "energy saving" oil if other manufacturers have started to even if you don't really need the CAFE credit? I'm not saying the 5W-20 is good or bad, only that claims that the "engineers made the decision" seem to have no basis. It's entirely possible lots of manufacturer's engineers think it's a stupid idea that sacrifices some wear protection for an alleged energy saving of minuscule amount. What makes me even more suspicious is that there are a few engines where they specifically say not to use it. So what's that telling you??? If ALL the engines used to get along just great on 10W-30 but now that they recommend 5W-20 for some of them they can no longer recommend it for *all* of them. Hmm. And that's when comparing a straight dino oil that was good enough for ALL of them, to a semi-synthetic that apparently still not good enough for some of them. About all I'm willing to conclude is that there were satisfied the engines using 5W-20 would make it thru the warranty period and that for some of the engines there were not even willing to risk it.

Reply to
AZGuy

For the same reason.

Do fifteen minutes' digging on the web, and you'll find Honda's oil viscosity recommendations for the same engines in similar cars in different markets. 5W20 is specified only in North America where CAFE exists.

DS

Reply to
Daniel J Stern

What delusional disorder makes you think Honda is any different than any of the others? The fact that they slap "ULEV" and "SULEV" on so many of their vehicles is that much MORE reason for them to cave to management pressure to eke out that .001% more economy and therefore lower emission rating. There seems to be a huge corporate pressure at Honda to cater to the "green" crowd no matter what it takes.

Reply to
Steve

Not that your delusional addition has any merit or basis, but yes, there is a pressure at Honda for a certain type of engine design, look up the name "Soichiro" for the source.

Reply to
Lon Stowell

I find it interesting that reportedly many Euro brands use things like

10W-40 when they sell em in Europe. I'm not sure if they recommend the same oil here in the states for those same models. But I have to wonder, why do those presumably tight tolerance motors seem to run just fine on such "thick" oil over in Europe but over here we are told to run 20 weight even here in the SW when its 110 in the shade.
Reply to
AZGuy

The fact that they were a joke of a car company in the early 1970s but were producing the #1 car in the US just 25 years later. This was probably a result of Honda employing more engineers per vehicle design than any other mass production auto maker in the world, 2-3 times as many as Ford does.

emission

You know that ULEV and SULEV aren't just stickers but are California standards that require such cars to run a lot cleaner, which tends to worsen their fuel economy. But any car company can improve its gas mileage much more through fancy transmissions and valve timing and lighter weight, which probably produce results that consumers notice, rather than by switching to thinner oil. And again, why would a company like Honda, which has no problems meeting CAFE, specify thinner oil just to eek out 0.2% better mileage, something that no consumer will notice?

Reply to
do_not_spam_me

|>And what makes you think the engineers made the decision to change |>from the old recommendation to the new?? Do you suppose "management" |>might have had a hand in it from the standpoint of "we can get an |>extra 0.2% gas mileage, which will help our fleet average, and even |if |>the engines have 10% more wear they will be long out of warranty way |>before the 10% shows up." | |> > That sounds like something Ford or GM would do, but why would Honda |> > need to resort to that? Honda has no problems meeting mileage |> > standards, and even if they did they boost their mileage by |> > reprogramming their computers because so many of them currently meet |> > ultra-low emissions standards. |> |> What delusional disorder makes you think Honda is any different than |> any of the others? | |The fact that they were a joke of a car company in the early 1970s but |were producing the #1 car in the US just 25 years later. This was |probably a result of Honda employing more engineers per vehicle design |than any other mass production auto maker in the world, 2-3 times as |many as Ford does. | |>The fact that they slap "ULEV" and "SULEV" on so many of their |>vehicles is that much MORE reason for them to cave to management |>pressure to eke out that .001% more economy and therefore lower |emission |>rating. There seems to be a huge corporate pressure at Honda to cater |to |>the "green" crowd no matter what it takes. | |You know that ULEV and SULEV aren't just stickers but are California |standards that require such cars to run a lot cleaner, which tends to |worsen their fuel economy. But any car company can improve its gas |mileage much more through fancy transmissions and valve timing and |lighter weight, which probably produce results that consumers notice, |rather than by switching to thinner oil. And again, why would a |company like Honda, which has no problems meeting CAFE, specify |thinner oil just to eek out 0.2% better mileage, something that no |consumer will notice?

I just talked to the Castrol rep about this. He said that currentoly no one makes this in a conventional oil. The specs can only be met with synthetic or semi-synthetic formulation.

Reply to
Rex B

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.