Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Which Mobil 1 oil has closer characteristics to the 5W-20 grade?

111 views
Skip to first unread message

Steve K. Lee

unread,
May 21, 2003, 5:43:14 PM5/21/03
to
Their 0W-20 or 5W-30?

The reason I ask is because, my 24,000KM (15,000miles) service for my
SUV is due soon and want to start using synthetic oil, but since the
dealer I usually go to has expressed their reluctance in using a grade
of oil other than 5W-20, even if fully synthetic (Mobil 1), I decided
to call all the other dealers in town (3 others).

They're letting me use Mobil 1's oil, but ALL recommended me to use
5W-30, instead of 0W-20. I was rather surprised since I thought that
Mobil 1's 0W-20 grade was the one that most closely resembled the lube
characteristics of the 5W-20. The general consensus from the service
advisors was that Mobil 1's 0W-20 would be "too light".

But it was my understanding that the only thing different between
0W-20 and 5W-20 is the "winter" temperature viscosity set out by the
SAE and the viscosity at operating temp is the same. Whereas, it's
the vise versa between 5W-20 and 5W-30.

I'm really confused here. It's all Mobil 1's fault. They should've
came out with a 5W-20 as well. But are all the service
advisors/technicians I spoke with misinformed or do I just have the
incorrect understanding of the oil grade designation?

I do apologize for beating an old horse, but I'm just confused now
after having spoken with those service advisors/technicians.

Pete

unread,
May 21, 2003, 6:06:57 PM5/21/03
to

"Steve K. Lee" <plz_ask@if_needed.com> wrote in message
news:g1rncv888p33cvrhd...@4ax.com...
> Their 0W-20 or 5W-30?

If it was my car, I'd use 5w-30. I don't know if it's closer to 5w-20 than
0w-20, but I'd rather give my engine too much top end protection than too
little.

Cheers,

Pete

bka...@snotmail.com

unread,
May 21, 2003, 8:32:57 PM5/21/03
to
In article <5MSya.60063$_e6.4...@news2.east.cox.net>, "Pete"
<escape...@hotmail.com> wrote:

These oils have the same viscosity at the specified temperature!
0W-? at -30C
5W-? at -25C
Not a whole lot of difference, and pretty meaningless during summer.
Service advisors have 2 words wrong in their job title.
Oil experts? NOT!

You can find usually intelligent oil discussions at:
http://theoildrop.server101.com

They tended to be quite skeptical about the 0W- oils, but analysis is
proving that they actually are quite good with a minimal amount of wear
metals. So much for too thin!
The "20" part is more in between 20 & 30 then close to 20. Since they
don't rate the second number in increments of 5, 20 is the closer number.
They also tend to have a good dose of molybdenum in them.

--
To Email me, change snot to hot

Platil

unread,
May 21, 2003, 8:44:51 PM5/21/03
to
Well, I work as Toyota service advisor, and in the past, as a petroleum
sales rep for the largest Valvoline distributor in the US. I was also the
training director for a chain of 15 quick lubes.

Don't assume all service advisors are clueless.

Jon

<bka...@snotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bkapaun-2105...@ip149.dialup.dhcp.nwlink.com...

Bruce L. Bergman

unread,
May 21, 2003, 9:28:33 PM5/21/03
to
On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:43:14 GMT, someone who calls themselves Steve
K. Lee <plz_ask@if_needed.com> wrote:

>Their 0W-20 or 5W-30?
>
>The reason I ask is because, my 24,000KM (15,000miles) service for my
>SUV is due soon and want to start using synthetic oil, but since the
>dealer I usually go to has expressed their reluctance in using a grade
>of oil other than 5W-20, even if fully synthetic (Mobil 1), I decided
>to call all the other dealers in town (3 others).
>
>They're letting me use Mobil 1's oil, but ALL recommended me to use
>5W-30, instead of 0W-20. I was rather surprised since I thought that
>Mobil 1's 0W-20 grade was the one that most closely resembled the lube
>characteristics of the 5W-20. The general consensus from the service
>advisors was that Mobil 1's 0W-20 would be "too light".

They could claim that 0W-20 caused any internal damage and void the
warranty - and that's a huge concern to you.

The 5W-30 synthetic is so good at low-temperature duty (down into
the -10 and -20 F area) that you only need to drop to the 0W-20 when
it gets into the -50 F range - and there are a whole raft of other
concerns besides oil when you try to make a car start reliably at
those extreme cold temperatures.

>But it was my understanding that the only thing different between
>0W-20 and 5W-20 is the "winter" temperature viscosity set out by the
>SAE and the viscosity at operating temp is the same. Whereas, it's
>the vise versa between 5W-20 and 5W-30.

If the car calls for a 5W-20 dinosaur oil, use the 5W-30 Mobil1
synthetic. It provides the minimum viscosity required by your
warranty, and even though the hot viscosity rating is "heavier" it
will still be physically thinner and provide better lubricating and
energy efficiency qualities.

And it's easier to buy the 5W-30 and 10W-30 formulas anywhere.

--<< Bruce >>--
--
Bruce L. Bergman, POB 394, Woodland Hills CA 91365, USA
Electrician, Westend Electric (#726700) Agoura, CA

WARNING: UCE Spam E-mail is not welcome here. I report violators.
SpamBlock In Use - Remove the "Python" with a "net" to E-Mail.

<>

unread,
May 21, 2003, 11:07:21 PM5/21/03
to
Steve,

I think you are correct and your advisors are misinformed.

It makes no sense for Mobil to market a 5W-20 synthetic when the
technology easily allows them to do better -- hence the 0W-20. Why
would you want extra viscosity in a synthetic oil under cold conditions?
(Ideally the oil would have the same viscosity under all conditions. Now
what that ideal viscosity might be remains a good question!)

The reason Honda specifies 5W-20 oil instead of 0W-20 is that mineral
oils can't achieve the 0W rating, and most customers wouldn't pay the
extra cost for a pure synthetic that would be required.

So I think using M1 0W-20 should be acceptable for your Honda. In fact
Mobil recommends the 0W-20 as a substitute for 5W-20. Check the label.

As an aside, now that Mobil markets M1 0W-30, I wonder how long they
will continue making 5W-30? Why will people still want the extra
viscosity of 5W during the winter time?

"Steve K. Lee" <plz_ask@if_needed.com> wrote in message
news:g1rncv888p33cvrhd...@4ax.com...

Pete

unread,
May 21, 2003, 11:29:05 PM5/21/03
to

"<>" <nos...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:J9Xya.928411$3D1.533238@sccrnsc01...

> As an aside, now that Mobil markets M1 0W-30, I wonder how long they
> will continue making 5W-30? Why will people still want the extra
> viscosity of 5W during the winter time?

The smaller the viscosity spread, the more shear-stable the oil. That's why
Mobil will continue to make 5w-30 and 10w-30 for those who don't live in
Alaska.

Cheers,

Pete

Philip®

unread,
May 21, 2003, 11:38:34 PM5/21/03
to
What percentage would you say are clueless? ;^)
--

~Philip

"Multiculturalism and coercive tolerance of bizarre lifestyles
describes a social experiment, not a civilization." --Paul Gottfried

"Platil" <sig...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:74Vya.927333$3D1.531985@sccrnsc01...

Philip®

unread,
May 21, 2003, 11:38:41 PM5/21/03
to
Interesting is that only M1 0w-40 meets Mercedes' toughest MB229.3 and
229.5 specs. M1 5w-30 and 10w-30 do not. I haven't seen a bottle of
M1 0w-20 or 5w-20 yet. Southern California isn't a place to get
concerned about cold cranking temps. LOL
--

~Philip

"Multiculturalism and coercive tolerance of bizarre lifestyles
describes a social experiment, not a civilization." --Paul Gottfried

"<>" <nos...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:J9Xya.928411$3D1.533238@sccrnsc01...

Dave M.

unread,
May 22, 2003, 12:29:38 AM5/22/03
to
Use the maximum oil viscosity recommended for use in your service manual.


Steve K. Lee <plz_ask@if_needed.com> wrote in message
news:g1rncv888p33cvrhd...@4ax.com...

Timothy J. Lee

unread,
May 22, 2003, 3:03:59 AM5/22/03
to
In article <J9Xya.928411$3D1.533238@sccrnsc01>, <> wrote:
>It makes no sense for Mobil to market a 5W-20 synthetic when the
>technology easily allows them to do better -- hence the 0W-20. Why
>would you want extra viscosity in a synthetic oil under cold conditions?

But is there any car that actually specifies 0W-20? Wouldn't it make
sense for them to market 5W-20, which is specified by many Honda and
Ford vehicles these days?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

G-Man

unread,
May 22, 2003, 7:52:43 AM5/22/03
to
I have switched to AMSOIL over Mobil. You can get it in a 5W-20 and the
price is better and meets or exceeds any specs of the Mobil 1. I also run it
in my motorcycles...and I'm even more picky about what goes into my bikes
:-)

http://www.amsoil.com/products/xl7500.html

No, I don't work for Amsoil :-)

We go through quite a few cases of the motorcycle stuff each hear, so I pay
that Preferred Dealer fee but get a big break on price.

Gary

"Steve K. Lee" <plz_ask@if_needed.com> wrote in message
news:g1rncv888p33cvrhd...@4ax.com...

Zip Disk

unread,
May 22, 2003, 8:08:41 AM5/22/03
to
"Bruce L. Bergman" <blpytho...@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:l38ocvgdp4kj81dqt...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:43:14 GMT, someone who calls themselves Steve
> K. Lee <plz_ask@if_needed.com> wrote:
>
> >Their 0W-20 or 5W-30?
> >
> >The reason I ask is because, my 24,000KM (15,000miles) service for my
> >SUV is due soon and want to start using synthetic oil, but since the
> >dealer I usually go to has expressed their reluctance in using a
grade
> >of oil other than 5W-20, even if fully synthetic (Mobil 1), I decided
> >to call all the other dealers in town (3 others).
> >
> >They're letting me use Mobil 1's oil, but ALL recommended me to use
> >5W-30, instead of 0W-20. I was rather surprised since I thought that
> >Mobil 1's 0W-20 grade was the one that most closely resembled the
lube
> >characteristics of the 5W-20. The general consensus from the service
> >advisors was that Mobil 1's 0W-20 would be "too light".
>
> They could claim that 0W-20 caused any internal damage and void the
> warranty - and that's a huge concern to you.

They can claim anything they want. Proof's another story and the burden
is on them - at least in the US.
My oil analyst says there's little difference between real synthetic
0W-20 & 5W-20 &, interestingly 0W-30 in terms of viscosity. Mobil Oil
says 0W-20 was designed for cars that use 5W-20. Point is, it doesn't
make much difference and dealerships are the last place I'd look for
advice. As to Honda, I wonder how they'd explain the lab results of the
*factory* fill on my 2002 Si which revealed an operating temperature
viscosity of < 10W at 5500 miles. Hell, the lab thought there must be
gasoline in the oil but there wasn't any nor any clue as to the results.

Pete

unread,
May 22, 2003, 9:27:08 AM5/22/03
to

"Timothy J. Lee" <remo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:bahsou$2kk$1...@bolt.sonic.net...

> But is there any car that actually specifies 0W-20? Wouldn't it make
> sense for them to market 5W-20, which is specified by many Honda and
> Ford vehicles these days?

AFAIK, Honda Insight specifies 0w-20.

Cheers,

Pete


Philip®

unread,
May 22, 2003, 10:48:58 AM5/22/03
to

"Zip Disk" <zi...@mail1.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0Y2za.8199$Qk2....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
>SNIP<

> As to Honda, I wonder how they'd explain the lab results of the
> *factory* fill on my 2002 Si which revealed an operating temperature
> viscosity of < 10W at 5500 miles. Hell, the lab thought there must be
> gasoline in the oil but there wasn't any nor any clue as to the
results.
>

Probably a break-in oil for American drivers who are usually frightened
to death to gouge on the gas pedal during the first 300 miles.

George Macdonald

unread,
May 22, 2003, 1:26:57 PM5/22/03
to
On Thu, 22 May 2003 00:44:51 GMT, "Platil" <sig...@insightbb.com> wrote:

>Well, I work as Toyota service advisor, and in the past, as a petroleum
>sales rep for the largest Valvoline distributor in the US. I was also the
>training director for a chain of 15 quick lubes.

Sales reps are not what one usually thinks of as tribology experts. How
much do you actually know about the SAE, API & ILSAC grading systems,
molecular structure, viscosity measurement and its effects and all the
other characteristics of lubricants?

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald

unread,
May 22, 2003, 1:26:57 PM5/22/03
to

I strongly suspect that the Mobil SuperSyn has no tradittional VI improver
additive at all - the VI enhancement comes from the SuperSyn components
which are themselves PAOs - so the usual shear of the additive is not a
concern. I think your right about the use of a 5W/xx or 10W/30 though - no
need for 0W/xx unless necessary and I still suspect there are risks which
have not been fully investigated.

George Macdonald

unread,
May 22, 2003, 1:26:59 PM5/22/03
to
On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:43:14 GMT, Steve K. Lee <plz_ask@if_needed.com>
wrote:

>Their 0W-20 or 5W-30?

I think the answer lies in Honda's alternative and previous history of
recommendations. e.g. for my 2K Accord the recommendation is 5W/30 with
the alternative of 10W/30 for temps down to 20F. Remember those are also
for "economy" grade mineral based oils. What does the owner manual
actually specify for oil?... is there an alternative to the 5W/20? My
advice, when the exact recommended grade is not available, would be to go
up rather than down in SAE numbers, especially if you live in a temperate
climate.

Philip®

unread,
May 22, 2003, 2:23:51 PM5/22/03
to

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> wrote in
message news:3ecd03d8...@news.tellurian.com...

> I strongly suspect that the Mobil SuperSyn has no tradittional VI
improver
> additive at all - the VI enhancement comes from the SuperSyn
components
> which are themselves PAOs - so the usual shear of the additive is not
a
> concern. I think your right about the use of a 5W/xx or 10W/30
though - no
> need for 0W/xx unless necessary and I still suspect there are risks
which
> have not been fully investigated.
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>

Mercedes Benz has endorsed Mobil1 0w-40 for awhile now and it's the
only M1 product to meet/exceed MB 229.3 and 229.5 tesing. Also meets
ACEA A3/B4-02 and B3-98. I think MB has investigated the "risks."

Pete

unread,
May 22, 2003, 2:42:32 PM5/22/03
to

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XA8za.10798$rO.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> I think MB has investigated the "risks."

LOL... just like when they have "investigated" the risks of letting people
run dino oil on Flexible Service System (FSS) schedule a couple of years ago
that cost them a pretty penny?

http://www.lubereport.com/e_article000146166.cfm?x=a1F3Slh,a13FsCnP

Cheers,

Pete

Platil

unread,
May 22, 2003, 8:33:18 PM5/22/03
to
Plenty about SAE, API, ILSAC requirements/test procedure, plus ISO and JASO.
If I needed a chemistry lesson, my retired uncle with 35 years as a Texaco
petroleum engineer, was just a phone call away.

Jon

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> wrote in message

news:3ecd02b2...@news.tellurian.com...

Philip®

unread,
May 22, 2003, 9:25:26 PM5/22/03
to

"Pete" <escape...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sS8za.63396$_e6....@news2.east.cox.net...

Out of that experience was born M1 0w-40. So yes, I think they know
more about the performance levels of current dino vs. synthetic oils in
their FSS system than you do. Be as pessimistic as you like. If an
owner of a vehicle with an Oil Life Monitoring System chooses to run an
oil OTHER THAN the one called for in the service book.... and the
engine sludges up .... who's to blame? Thank you.

Pete

unread,
May 22, 2003, 10:03:06 PM5/22/03
to

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aMeza.11296$rO.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> Out of that experience was born M1 0w-40. So yes, I think they know
> more about the performance levels of current dino vs. synthetic oils in
> their FSS system than you do. Be as pessimistic as you like. If an
> owner of a vehicle with an Oil Life Monitoring System chooses to run an
> oil OTHER THAN the one called for in the service book.... and the
> engine sludges up .... who's to blame? Thank you.

But that's exactly the point - they didn't specify that the oil had to be
synthetic. That's why all this FSS blew up in their face.

I have nothing against M1 0w-40; heck, I use it myself. I'm just saying,
don't rely on one company's oil recommendations because they may not always
be right.

Cheers,

Pete

Steve K. Lee

unread,
May 22, 2003, 10:57:50 PM5/22/03
to
On Thu, 22 May 2003 17:26:59 GMT, fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com
(George Macdonald) wrote:

>On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:43:14 GMT, Steve K. Lee <plz_ask@if_needed.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Their 0W-20 or 5W-30?

[snip]


>I think the answer lies in Honda's alternative and previous history of
>recommendations. e.g. for my 2K Accord the recommendation is 5W/30 with
>the alternative of 10W/30 for temps down to 20F. Remember those are also
>for "economy" grade mineral based oils. What does the owner manual
>actually specify for oil?... is there an alternative to the 5W/20? My
>advice, when the exact recommended grade is not available, would be to go
>up rather than down in SAE numbers, especially if you live in a temperate
>climate.

I see, I see. Thanks for your reply, George, even though you're not
particuarly fond of SUV's ;-) So, if I were to go up in SAE numbers
from the 5W-20 grade, then which should I be using, Mobil 1's 0W-20 or
the 5W-30 grade? Sorry, nobody ever accused me of being sharp.
Thanks.

Philip®

unread,
May 23, 2003, 12:39:48 AM5/23/03
to

"Pete" <escape...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ujfza.63857$_e6....@news2.east.cox.net...

Surely there is a learning curve with all cutting edge technology. You
know this. But what seems odd is that once along the learing curve,
you wish to continue chastising a company for past errors. Now... when
the oil recommendation is QUITE specific for the car manufacturer's oil
monitoring system to work correctly, then using an different oil
(talking about composition, NOT viscosity) then all bets are off. But
if it is as you say that nothing more than an oil weight was identified
well then.... (see "learning curve")

Philip®

unread,
May 23, 2003, 12:39:56 AM5/23/03
to

"Steve K. Lee" <plz_ask@if_needed.com> wrote in message
news:bj3rcvk3n14d889im...@4ax.com...

A move "up" from 5w-20 "especially in a temperate climate" would be
5w-30.

George Macdonald

unread,
May 23, 2003, 1:41:30 PM5/23/03
to
On Fri, 23 May 2003 00:33:18 GMT, "Platil" <sig...@insightbb.com> wrote:

>Plenty about SAE, API, ILSAC requirements/test procedure, plus ISO and JASO.
>If I needed a chemistry lesson, my retired uncle with 35 years as a Texaco
>petroleum engineer, was just a phone call away.

I'll have to believe your claim of knowledge of the standards and hopefully
what their ramifications are. The chemistry, you'll have to yield on - you
cannot learn in even a few days, never mind a 'phone call, what takes
several years of academic studies and professional assimilation. IOW you
may be able to get an answer; whether you'll understand it enough to take
an authoritative advisory stance is another matter.

George Macdonald

unread,
May 23, 2003, 1:41:32 PM5/23/03
to
On Fri, 23 May 2003 02:57:50 GMT, Steve K. Lee <plz_ask@if_needed.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 22 May 2003 17:26:59 GMT, fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com
>(George Macdonald) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:43:14 GMT, Steve K. Lee <plz_ask@if_needed.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Their 0W-20 or 5W-30?
>[snip]
>>I think the answer lies in Honda's alternative and previous history of
>>recommendations. e.g. for my 2K Accord the recommendation is 5W/30 with
>>the alternative of 10W/30 for temps down to 20F. Remember those are also
>>for "economy" grade mineral based oils. What does the owner manual
>>actually specify for oil?... is there an alternative to the 5W/20? My
>>advice, when the exact recommended grade is not available, would be to go
>>up rather than down in SAE numbers, especially if you live in a temperate
>>climate.
>
>I see, I see. Thanks for your reply, George, even though you're not
>particuarly fond of SUV's ;-) So, if I were to go up in SAE numbers
>from the 5W-20 grade, then which should I be using, Mobil 1's 0W-20 or
>the 5W-30 grade? Sorry, nobody ever accused me of being sharp.

Check your owner manual for the lubricant chart but what I meant was "up"
to the next higher viscosity/range, i.e. instead of 5W/20, use 5W/30.
Personally, I'm going to continue to use 10W/30.

George Macdonald

unread,
May 23, 2003, 1:41:31 PM5/23/03
to
On Thu, 22 May 2003 18:23:51 GMT, "Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
>"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> wrote in
>message news:3ecd03d8...@news.tellurian.com...
>> I strongly suspect that the Mobil SuperSyn has no tradittional VI
>improver
>> additive at all - the VI enhancement comes from the SuperSyn
>components
>> which are themselves PAOs - so the usual shear of the additive is not
>a
>> concern. I think your right about the use of a 5W/xx or 10W/30
>though - no
>> need for 0W/xx unless necessary and I still suspect there are risks
>which
>> have not been fully investigated.
>>
>> Rgds, George Macdonald
>>
>
>Mercedes Benz has endorsed Mobil1 0w-40 for awhile now and it's the
>only M1 product to meet/exceed MB 229.3 and 229.5 tesing. Also meets
>ACEA A3/B4-02 and B3-98. I think MB has investigated the "risks."

Car makers "endorse" products for all sorts of reasons, not all of which
are in the interests of customers. We won't know the final outcome of the
current fad for lubricant "field testing" until the cars have actually gone
through a normal daily routine for several years and an appropriate
mileage. I certainly believe there will be a few hiccups along the way.

Philip®

unread,
May 23, 2003, 7:44:59 PM5/23/03
to

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> wrote in
message news:3ece550b...@news.tellurian.com...

On this point (field testing) we agree. As far as I am concerned, the
jury is still out on "extended drain intervals" because I see
environmental and contrived fleet operating costs compromising optimal
engine life.

Curtis Newton

unread,
May 24, 2003, 5:44:47 PM5/24/03
to
On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:43:14 GMT, Steve K. Lee <plz_ask@if_needed.com>
wrote:

>Their 0W-20 or 5W-30?
>


>The reason I ask is because, my 24,000KM (15,000miles) service for my
>SUV is due soon and want to start using synthetic oil, but since the
>dealer I usually go to has expressed their reluctance in using a grade
>of oil other than 5W-20, even if fully synthetic (Mobil 1), I decided
>to call all the other dealers in town (3 others).
>


Wal-Mart is now carrying 5W20, as well as 0W40.
-
--
Curtis Newton
cne...@remove-me.akaMail.com
http://surf.to/cnewton
<delete remove-me. to respond to email>
ICQ: 4899169

Curtis Newton

unread,
May 25, 2003, 12:22:26 AM5/25/03
to
On Sat, 24 May 2003 21:44:47 GMT, Curtis Newton
<cne...@remove-me.akamail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 May 2003 21:43:14 GMT, Steve K. Lee <plz_ask@if_needed.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Their 0W-20 or 5W-30?
>>
>>The reason I ask is because, my 24,000KM (15,000miles) service for my
>>SUV is due soon and want to start using synthetic oil, but since the
>>dealer I usually go to has expressed their reluctance in using a grade
>>of oil other than 5W-20, even if fully synthetic (Mobil 1), I decided
>>to call all the other dealers in town (3 others).
>>
>
>
>Wal-Mart is now carrying 5W20, as well as 0W40.
>-


Sorry, my mistake....just looked again....they are carrying 0W20 and
saying it is equivalent to 5W20 and meets the specs for Honda.

Sorry about that.

Bror Jace

unread,
May 25, 2003, 3:08:54 PM5/25/03
to
fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com (George Macdonald) wrote in message news:<3ecd03d8...@news.tellurian.com>...

> >The smaller the viscosity spread, the more shear-stable the oil. That's why
> >Mobil will continue to make 5w-30 and 10w-30 for those who don't live in
> >Alaska.
>
> I strongly suspect that the Mobil SuperSyn has no tradittional VI improver
> additive at all - the VI enhancement comes from the SuperSyn components
> which are themselves PAOs - so the usual shear of the additive is not a
> concern. I think your right about the use of a 5W/xx or 10W/30 though - no
> need for 0W/xx unless necessary and I still suspect there are risks which
> have not been fully investigated.

I agree in general about the smaller spreads but VII (Viscosity Index
Improvers) have improved a great deal in the last few years. They are
a lot better than they were at resisting shearing. Pennzoil has a new
VII for their 15W40 fleet oil. They bought it from Shell ... who (by
agreement) can't use it in their Rotella 15W40.

I've also heard that an oil can spread its numbers by increasing the
ester content as these are thin, extremely thermally stable
lubricants.

--- Bror Jace

Steve K. Lee

unread,
May 26, 2003, 2:27:28 AM5/26/03
to
On Fri, 23 May 2003 04:39:56 GMT, "Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>"Steve K. Lee" <plz_ask@if_needed.com> wrote in message

[snip]


>> I see, I see. Thanks for your reply, George, even though you're not
>> particuarly fond of SUV's ;-) So, if I were to go up in SAE numbers
>> from the 5W-20 grade, then which should I be using, Mobil 1's 0W-20
>or
>> the 5W-30 grade? Sorry, nobody ever accused me of being sharp.
>> Thanks.
>
>A move "up" from 5w-20 "especially in a temperate climate" would be
>5w-30.

Great, thanks for your reply. One question that was raised by my
co-worker who's also very interested in this issue is that, since
0W-20 would be "thinner" or more fluid at colder temperatures,
wouldn't it be better to use it instead of 5W-30 which would be
"thicker" at the same colder temperatures?

His guess was that "thinner" or more fluid oil would provide more and
quicker lubrication at those -35C (-30F) temperatures we get here,
thus resulting in less friction between the engine parts.

Basically, his argument was that, since they both have the same "20"
rating, which would provide the same operating temp protection, it'd
be better to use the oil with more fluid W rating. What do you think
about this?

Philip®

unread,
May 26, 2003, 1:22:30 PM5/26/03
to

"Steve K. Lee" <plz_ask@if_needed.com> wrote in message
news:hnc3dvse9mqncpdo1...@4ax.com...

Thirty degrees BELOW zero? Brrrrr! That kind of low temperature is
about the only "legitimate" condition for 0w-20 oil, so far as I am
concerned. When I see 0w-20 or 5w-20 recommended by Ford and Honda in
climates like mine (southern California), the motive is entirely
suspect (ultimate fuel mileage for the first 25-50k miles, afterwhich
10w-30 is in the best interest of cushioning moving parts). I've
studied a wide range of piston skirt and crankshaft journal charts from
various import and domestic manufacturers and they really don't vary
nearly as much as the recommended oil viscosities (current compared to
15-20 years ago) which tells you viscous drag is a factor in the quest
for
ultimate MPG.

George Macdonald

unread,
May 26, 2003, 4:10:10 PM5/26/03
to
On Mon, 26 May 2003 06:27:28 GMT, Steve K. Lee <plz_ask@if_needed.com>
wrote:

Well -35C is pretty low and *might* be a case for 0W/xx but look up the
pumpability specs on the major oil company web sites and I think you'll
find that 5W/xx should cover you. There are other issues here too: if the
engine turns faster on initial startup at those low temps it may not be all
"good news" - apart from internal parts working at higher speed there's
also the accessories which can be stressed by not being allowed a gentle
warmup period... for even just a few seconds. IOW you may get excessive
power steering pump and alternator squealing.

Restic

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 6:14:21 AM6/8/03
to
Dry starts and close tolerances are the problems with the new engines, it is
not just about mileage.
Just ask all of those Toyota V6 3.0 engines that have sludge problems. They
have now replaced that engine with it a 3.3 liter.
This problem GM had many years with their V6 using with people using higher
W oils than specified.
Stick to the factory use 5W20. you want that oil to get back to the
crankcase as fast as possible.


Curtis Newton

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 9:53:36 AM6/8/03
to
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:14:21 GMT, "Restic" <ab...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dry starts and close tolerances are the problems with the new engines, it is
>not just about mileage.

>Stick to the factory use 5W20. you want that oil to get back to the
>crankcase as fast as possible.
>

Which Mobil1 0W20 will do.

Philip®

unread,
Jun 8, 2003, 11:53:03 AM6/8/03
to
If you examine some Motors or Chiltons manuals for piston skirt and
crankshaft journal clearances across a broad spectrum of import engines
for the past 20 years, you will not find a tightening of oil
clearances. Sorry. Also, I would like to see your source suggesting a
relationship between "w" oils and sludge. I suggest to you that there
is no such link.

Also, would you mind limiting your cross posting, please?
--

~Philip

"Multiculturalism and coercive tolerance of bizarre lifestyles
describes a social experiment, not a civilization." --Paul Gottfried

"Restic" <ab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10EEa.17610$b8.1...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...

DTT

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 3:14:28 AM6/12/03
to
Now ... we have a real paranoid on board. Let's waste money on Castrol
Synthetic too.

Do you know why Castrol oil rated at 5W50. Not because it is too thick
like 50 weight oil. It's all about the viscosity change at
temperature.

And for the Toyota sludge problem. It didn't occur on any other
engines, but why only the 3.0 V6. Could it because the oil???

"Restic" <ab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10EEa.17610$b8.1...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>...

Philip®

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 10:24:55 AM6/12/03
to
What you have is a grossly crossposted (mostly Honda) message. BTW,
sludge has occured in engines besides the 3.0 V6 and in other brands.
But when you're in the limelight....
--

~Philip

"Multiculturalism and coercive tolerance of bizarre lifestyles
describes a social experiment, not a civilization." --Paul Gottfried

noway

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 10:26:27 AM7/7/03
to
I sent an email to Mobil, and they replied with 0w20, and said it will meet
all manufacturers requirements.

"Restic" <ab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10EEa.17610$b8.1...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...

noway

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 10:29:27 AM7/7/03
to
This is the reply I got from Mobil:

>I just bought a Honda Civic EX Coupe, 2003, and it requires 5w20 oil. Is
there any plans on making this viscosity in Mobil 1?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Harvey
>
>
>
Mobil will not market a synthetic 5W20 motor oil however MObil1 0W20 is
available and will meet your warranty requirments.


"Restic" <ab...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10EEa.17610$b8.1...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...

Joseph Wind

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 8:08:46 PM7/7/03
to
Torco SR-1 comes in 5w20, and was developed for smaller 4 cyl. engines.
www.torcousa.com

"noway" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:btfOa.503739$3n5.4...@news2.central.cox.net...

Xavier

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 8:04:11 PM7/7/03
to

"noway" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:btfOa.503739$3n5.4...@news2.central.cox.net...

It's easier to get 5W30, is that acceptable? Costco has the 5 quart jugs
really cheap.


Milleron

unread,
Jul 7, 2003, 8:54:33 PM7/7/03
to
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:04:11 GMT, "Xavier" <mdnbl...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

My Honda dealer uses Mobil 1 5W30 if a full synthetic is requested for
engines for which 5W20 is specified.
>

Ron

(to reply, change the "dot" to a ".")

George Macdonald

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 8:00:07 AM7/8/03
to
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 00:04:11 GMT, "Xavier" <mdnbl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

IMO 5W/30 is a better choice (tan 5W/20), especially if you have high
Summer temps.

noway

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 10:45:00 AM7/8/03
to
>
> It's easier to get 5W30, is that acceptable? Costco has the 5 quart jugs
> really cheap.

I wouldn't put 30 in where 20 is recommended. You can always call or email
Mobil, or the manufacturer to get there recommendations.


Philip®

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 11:55:44 AM7/8/03
to

To be quite blunk about it ... from what do you know about the real
world difference between 5w-20 vs. 5w-30 and why the factory
recommendation in the first place?
--

Philip

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending
the same way, make the design visible to the people . tis not to be
wondered that they should then rouse themselves."
- John Locke (1632-1704)

Stephen Bigelow

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 2:39:34 PM7/8/03
to

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4QBOa.89628$Io.78...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> >noway wrote:
> >> It's easier to get 5W30, is that acceptable? Costco has the 5
> >> quart jugs really cheap.
> >
> > I wouldn't put 30 in where 20 is recommended. You can always call or
> > email Mobil, or the manufacturer to get there recommendations.
>
> To be quite blunk about it ... from what do you know about the real
> world difference between 5w-20 vs. 5w-30 and why the factory
> recommendation in the first place?

As much as any other poster.


Xavier

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 5:29:29 PM7/8/03
to

"Stephen Bigelow" <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:GdEOa.83866$a51....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
From acura-cl.com it seems the 2001, maybe 2002 CL stated 5W30 was okay to
use (per the manual) then the standard changed to 5W20 to better meet CAFE
standards. So I would guess it was to get that .008% better gas mileage?


Stephen Bigelow

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 5:59:09 PM7/8/03
to

"Xavier" <mdnbl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HHq6D...@news.boeing.com...

>> > > To be quite blunk about it ... from what do you know about the real
> > > world difference between 5w-20 vs. 5w-30 and why the factory
> > > recommendation in the first place?
> >
> > As much as any other poster.
> >
> From acura-cl.com it seems the 2001, maybe 2002 CL stated 5W30 was okay
to
> use (per the manual) then the standard changed to 5W20 to better meet CAFE
> standards. So I would guess it was to get that .008% better gas mileage?

Dunno. Maybe.
Lighter oil flows slightly better during "cold*" starts, too.
Longevity?
Again, dunno.


*Even at 30C, it's still a cold start to the oil.


Matthew Hunt

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 6:13:32 PM7/8/03
to
In article <N8HOa.99613$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Stephen Bigelow <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote:

> Lighter oil flows slightly better during "cold*" starts, too.

5W-20 and 5W-30 will have similar viscosities in cold starts, since
they are both 5W.

Stephen Bigelow

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 6:31:46 PM7/8/03
to

"Matthew Hunt" <m...@wopr.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:beffmc$h1f$1...@naig.caltech.edu...

<Sarcasm>
You're absolutely correct, of course, since all cold starts happen at 0F.
<End sarcasm>

You trimmed off the last, important line of my post, "*Even at 30C, it's


still a cold start to the oil."

Which flows better at 30C, 5W-20, or 5W-30?

Matthew Hunt

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 7:17:30 PM7/8/03
to
In article <mDHOa.99624$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Stephen Bigelow <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote:

> You trimmed off the last, important line of my post, "*Even at 30C, it's
> still a cold start to the oil."
> Which flows better at 30C, 5W-20, or 5W-30?

The discussion is basically "what motivated Honda to spec 5W-20." If
the motivation were startup wear, the appropriate action would be to
spec a 0W oil, like the 0W-20 they spec for the Insight or a 0W-30.
Since they instead changed the 100 C spec, from 30 to 20 weight, we can
conclude that their motivation has more to do with operating temperature
than startup.

JETman

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 7:34:41 PM7/8/03
to


If the ambient temperature is 30°C, it ain't gonna amount to a hill of beans.


--
Regards,

JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)

Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......

JETman

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 7:35:43 PM7/8/03
to

The recommendation of "thin" oils is almost always to achieve better gas
mileage and of course there are trade offs...

Philip®

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 8:48:24 PM7/8/03
to
>Xavier wrote:
>>
>> "Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:4QBOa.89628$Io.78...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> To be quite blunt about it ... from what do you know about the real

>>> world difference between 5w-20 vs. 5w-30 and why the factory
>>> recommendation in the first place?
> From acura-cl.com it seems the 2001, maybe 2002 CL stated 5W30 was
> okay to use (per the manual) then the standard changed to 5W20 to
> better meet CAFE standards. So I would guess it was to get that
> .008% better gas mileage?

You have it right. In the short term, the ultra thin oil is for CAFE
certification. It would be interesting if CAFE fuel certs were
performed with 3,000 hrs on the sample engine. Wanna bet these water
thin oils would be history?

Philip®

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 8:48:30 PM7/8/03
to

SO MANY non thinkers miss that fact.

Philip®

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 8:48:36 PM7/8/03
to

No appreciable difference since the high end weight is measured at
215ºF. There is very very little real world difference between the two
oils throughout the anticipated operating range. 5w-20 is about CAFE
.... period.

Philip®

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 8:48:42 PM7/8/03
to

Curious... WHY is this cross posted to a Toyota forum?

Philip®

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 8:48:48 PM7/8/03
to
>JETman wrote:
> Matthew Hunt wrote:
>>
>> In article
>> <mDHOa.99624$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>> Stephen Bigelow <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You trimmed off the last, important line of my post, "*Even at 30C,
>>> it's still a cold start to the oil."
>>> Which flows better at 30C, 5W-20, or 5W-30?
>>
>> The discussion is basically "what motivated Honda to spec 5W-20." If
>> the motivation were startup wear, the appropriate action would be to
>> spec a 0W oil, like the 0W-20 they spec for the Insight or a 0W-30.
>> Since they instead changed the 100 C spec, from 30 to 20 weight, we
>> can conclude that their motivation has more to do with operating
>> temperature than startup.
>
>
>
> The recommendation of "thin" oils is almost always to achieve better
> gas mileage and of course there are trade offs...

There ya Go. I'm not interested in that "particular" trade off. My
last car was a 1990 Geo Prizm that I bought new ... and put 285,000
miles on. Mobil1 oil all the way. The motor was in very good condition
when I sold it and the new owner just rolled it past 300,000.

Stephen Bigelow

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 9:30:59 PM7/8/03
to

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EDJOa.35213$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> >Stephen Bigelow wrote:
> > "Matthew Hunt" <m...@wopr.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> > news:beffmc$h1f$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
> >> In article
> >> <N8HOa.99613$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> >> Stephen Bigelow <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Lighter oil flows slightly better during "cold*" starts, too.
> >>
> >> 5W-20 and 5W-30 will have similar viscosities in cold starts, since
> >> they are both 5W.
> >
> > <Sarcasm>
> > You're absolutely correct, of course, since all cold starts happen at
> > 0F. <End sarcasm>
> >
> > You trimmed off the last, important line of my post, "*Even at 30C,
> > it's still a cold start to the oil."
> > Which flows better at 30C, 5W-20, or 5W-30?
>
> No appreciable difference since the high end weight is measured at
> 215ºF.

Uh-huh.
I'm aware of the measuring temps, which is why I added the proviso of the
30C cold start temp.


There is very very little real world difference between the two
> oils throughout the anticipated operating range. 5w-20 is about CAFE
> .... period.

Cool.


Stephen Bigelow

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 9:32:46 PM7/8/03
to

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QDJOa.35215$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

>> > The recommendation of "thin" oils is almost always to achieve better
> > gas mileage and of course there are trade offs...
>
> There ya Go. I'm not interested in that "particular" trade off.

*What* particular trade off?

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EDJOa.35213$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

. There is very very little real world difference between the two


> oils throughout the anticipated operating range. 5w-20 is about CAFE
> .... period.

> --
>
> Philip

Stephen Bigelow

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 9:36:21 PM7/8/03
to

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:yDJOa.35211$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> >Matthew Hunt wrote:
> > In article
> > <N8HOa.99613$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, Stephen
> > Bigelow <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Lighter oil flows slightly better during "cold*" starts, too.
> >
> > 5W-20 and 5W-30 will have similar viscosities in cold starts, since
> > they are both 5W.
>
> SO MANY non thinkers miss that fact.

5W is NOT a cold start viscosity for me today.
If it is for you, you must live at the South Pole.


Is the temp/viscosity curve for M1 5W-XX linear?

Gml...@scvnet.com

unread,
Jul 8, 2003, 10:34:06 PM7/8/03
to

"Stephen Bigelow" <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:mDHOa.99624$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

SAE 0. That doesn't mean that you want to actually use it at high
temperatures!

The viscosity determines how quickly the oil enters and leaves the bearings.
If the exit clearances are small, then a higher viscosity oil will maintain
a thicker oil film. The tradeoff is greater fluid friction. Of course,
there is a limit to how thick you want to go in terms of cold start and oil
pump performance.

It is interesting to note that there are different oils specified for
different markets. I really don't see enough environmental differences
between Australia and the US to justify lower viscosity oil for the US. It
seems that it has more to do with CAFE than with engine protection.

Nobody ever blew an engine by using SAE30 oil in place of SAE20!

George


Xavier

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 12:18:57 AM7/9/03
to

"Joseph Wind" <j...@gif.com> wrote in message
news:bed1p9$14h$1...@sun-news.laserlink.net...

I am really curious about Royal Purple and Amsoil. I think the viscosity
question is over, now it's brands I am curious about.


Philip®

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 2:20:23 AM7/9/03
to
Gml...@scvnet.com wrote:
>
> SAE 0. That doesn't mean that you want to actually use it at high
> temperatures!
>
> The viscosity determines how quickly the oil enters and leaves the
> bearings. If the exit clearances are small, then a higher viscosity
> oil will maintain a thicker oil film. The tradeoff is greater fluid
> friction. Of course, there is a limit to how thick you want to go in
> terms of cold start and oil pump performance.
>
> It is interesting to note that there are different oils specified for
> different markets. I really don't see enough environmental
> differences between Australia and the US to justify lower viscosity
> oil for the US. It seems that it has more to do with CAFE than with
> engine protection.
>
> Nobody ever blew an engine by using SAE30 oil in place of SAE20!
>
> George

Well put, George. I agree regarding CAFE objectives while
marginalizing engine bearings. The ultra light oils should carry a
caveat that they are ONLY to be used in the lightest duty driving
cycles.

Philip®

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 2:20:30 AM7/9/03
to

Nevada sees 0ŗF .... many northern USA states see sub zero weather too.
Ya don't need snow to have these temperatures. Did you know that?
With 5w-30, 5w IS the viscosity you start with (at 32ŗF) and oils only
THIN from that point as they warm, not thicken. Did you know that? ;^)

Stephen Bigelow

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 8:30:06 AM7/9/03
to

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OuOOa.91107$Io.79...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> > 5W is NOT a cold start viscosity for me today.
> > If it is for you, you must live at the South Pole.
>
> Nevada sees 0ŗF .... many northern USA states see sub zero weather too.
> Ya don't need snow to have these temperatures. Did you know that?
> With 5w-30, 5w IS the viscosity you start with (at 32ŗF) and oils only
> THIN from that point as they warm, not thicken. Did you know that? ;^)

The rest of the western world measures "W" at 0F, not 32F.


Philip®

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 11:16:21 AM7/9/03
to

I mispoke, I do know better. I stand corrected. Thank you. Does that
change anything for your temperate climate comparision of 5w-20 vs.
5w-30? Of course not.

From "howstuffworks":

"Viscosity (a fluid's resistance to flow) is rated at 0° F (represented
by the number preceding the "W" [for Winter]) and at 212° F (represented
by the second number in the viscosity designation). So 10W-30 oil has
less viscosity when cold and hot than does 20W-50. Motor oil thins as it
heats and thickens as it cools. So, with the right additives to help it
resist thinning too much, an oil can be rated for one viscosity when
cold, another when hot. The more resistant it is to thinning, the higher
the second number (10W-40 versus 10W-30, for example) and that's good.
Within reason, thicker oil generally seals better and maintains a better
film of lubrication between moving parts."

The final sentence in this paragraph implies that too thin an oil can
marginalize component life. And for what? Overly zealous CAFE
standards. Do note the words "within reason."

Gml...@scvnet.com

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 12:47:44 PM7/9/03
to

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9lWOa.36419$C83.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> From "howstuffworks":
>
> "Viscosity (a fluid's resistance to flow) is rated at 0° F (represented
> by the number preceding the "W" [for Winter]) and at 212° F (represented
> by the second number in the viscosity designation). So 10W-30 oil has
> less viscosity when cold and hot than does 20W-50. Motor oil thins as it
> heats and thickens as it cools.

To add to this, there are two completely different tests to determine the
winter and summer viscosity numbers, and the two numbers do not relate to
each other. One number carries the "W" suffix to distinguish it from the
other.

All oils thin as they warm. Viscosity modifiers flatten the curve, but even
a 10W50 oil will get thinner as it reaches operating temperature.


Liam Devlin

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 3:33:27 PM7/9/03
to
Philip® wrote:
> Stephen Bigelow wrote:
>
>>"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:yDJOa.35211$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>>Matthew Hunt wrote:
>>>>In article
>>>><N8HOa.99613$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>>>>Stephen Bigelow <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Lighter oil flows slightly better during "cold*" starts, too.
>>>>
>>>>5W-20 and 5W-30 will have similar viscosities in cold starts, since
>>>>they are both 5W.
>>>
>>>SO MANY non thinkers miss that fact.
>>
>>5W is NOT a cold start viscosity for me today.
>>If it is for you, you must live at the South Pole.
>
> Nevada sees 0ŗF .... many northern USA states see sub zero weather too.
> Ya don't need snow to have these temperatures. Did you know that?
> With 5w-30, 5w IS the viscosity you start with (at 32ŗF) and oils only
> THIN from that point as they warm, not thicken. Did you know that? ;^)

Dude, if the viscosity of the oil measures SAE 5 at 0 F and SAE 20 at
212 F; the viscosity has increased as the oil warmed up, i.e., the oil
has not "thinned". That's the whole point of multi-grade oils.

Matthew Hunt

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 4:39:01 PM7/9/03
to
In article <3F0C6E1B...@XXXX.optonline.net>,
Liam Devlin <Li...@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote:

> Dude, if the viscosity of the oil measures SAE 5 at 0 F and SAE 20 at
> 212 F; the viscosity has increased as the oil warmed up, i.e., the oil
> has not "thinned". That's the whole point of multi-grade oils.

There is no SAE 5, and the SAE grade is not a viscosity measurement.
Viscosity is measured in units like cSt (centistokes).

Mobil 1 5W-30 (from their datasheet):

Viscosity @ 40 C: 56 cSt
Vicscosity @ 100 C: 10 cSt

Would you still claim that this oil has not thinned between 40 and 100 C?
It's simply thinned less than a SAE 30 straight-weight would have. That's

Gml...@scvnet.com

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 7:33:56 PM7/9/03
to

"Liam Devlin" <Li...@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3F0C6E1B...@XXXX.optonline.net...

> Dude, if the viscosity of the oil measures SAE 5 at 0 F and SAE 20 at
> 212 F; the viscosity has increased as the oil warmed up, i.e., the oil
> has not "thinned". That's the whole point of multi-grade oils.

Well, the first word of your response says it all, but I will attempt to
explain to you how viscosity is measured.

First, the SAE rating of the oil is _not_ a measure of its viscosity. It is
a number to designate the viscosity range that the oil has been measured to
conform to.

Viscosity is measured by putting a sample of oil into a metal cup. The cup
is surrounded by a water bath to keep the oil at the desired temperature.
There is a hole in the bottom of the cup of a set diameter. The hole is
unplugged, and the time required for a set amount of oil to drain out is
measured. High viscosity means longer times, low viscosity means shorter
times. One unit for this raw viscosity data is the stoke, but this unit is
too large, so you will commonly see it stated in centistokes.

There are two different temperatures at which the viscosity is measured.
One is designed to determine the viscosity at low temperatures, the other at
operating temperatures.

I have actually performed these tests. There are some details I have left
out, but this is the gist of how it is done.

The SAE specificationd for the hot test gives a range of viscosity for which
oils are given a rating of SAE 0, 5, 10, 15, and so on. If the viscosity
falls into the range, it gets that SAE number.

There is a separate set of specifications for the cold test, which are given
ratings of SAE 0W, 5W, 10W, and so on. Again, if the viscosity falls into a
certain range, it gets that SAE number.

The two SAE numbers are _not_ comparable. If you take an oil that has a
rating of SAE10W for the cold test, it will likely not have a rating of SAE
10 for the high temperature test.

All oils become less viscous with an increase in temperature. It would be
very difficult to engineer a liquid polymer that becomes more viscous.
Designing such a polymer that is also a lubricant is asking a lot!

George


Philip®

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 8:14:31 PM7/9/03
to
Liam Devlin wrote:
>
> Dude, if the viscosity of the oil measures SAE 5 at 0 F and SAE 20 at
> 212 F; the viscosity has increased as the oil warmed up, i.e., the oil
> has not "thinned". That's the whole point of multi-grade oils.

Dude: YOU need the MOST remedial lesson in motor oil.

(a) ALL oils thin as they acquire heat.

(b) A multigrade oil (for discussion, a 10w-40) at 0ºF is 10 weight oil
that is fortified with polymers that make the oil resist thinning as it
is heated.

(c) A 40 weight oil without polymers when heated to 212ºF will have the
same viscosity as the 10 weight WITH polymers when both are heated to
212ºF. Both oils experience thinning with the unfortified 40 weight
experiencing a much greater degree of thinning. So, our polymer
fortified 10 weight can now perform as a mutigrade 10w-40 weight oil.

George Macdonald

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 10:00:55 PM7/9/03
to
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:20:23 GMT, "Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Gml...@scvnet.com wrote:
>>
>> SAE 0. That doesn't mean that you want to actually use it at high
>> temperatures!
>>
>> The viscosity determines how quickly the oil enters and leaves the
>> bearings. If the exit clearances are small, then a higher viscosity
>> oil will maintain a thicker oil film. The tradeoff is greater fluid
>> friction. Of course, there is a limit to how thick you want to go in
>> terms of cold start and oil pump performance.
>>
>> It is interesting to note that there are different oils specified for
>> different markets. I really don't see enough environmental
>> differences between Australia and the US to justify lower viscosity
>> oil for the US. It seems that it has more to do with CAFE than with
>> engine protection.
>>
>> Nobody ever blew an engine by using SAE30 oil in place of SAE20!
>>
>> George
>
>Well put, George. I agree regarding CAFE objectives while
>marginalizing engine bearings. The ultra light oils should carry a
>caveat that they are ONLY to be used in the lightest duty driving
>cycles.

The last time I looked at a case of 5W/20 in the auto parts store it had a
clear, prominent warning that it was for use only in vehicles where
specifically recommended by the auto mfr. I get the imrpession the
lubricant companies are wary of this stuff. Me - I'll let someone else be
the guinea pig.

BTW Honda still recommends 10W/30 (not even 5W/30) for the S2000 and NSX.
There has to be a reason.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 10:00:56 PM7/9/03
to

Last time I looked Royal Purple was a Mom 'n' Pop operation - high-tech
though.<snigger> Amsoil is a religion - you either get it or you don't.
In any case, where do you think both get their basestocks and additives?

Liam Devlin

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 10:58:53 PM7/9/03
to
Matthew Hunt wrote:
> In article <3F0C6E1B...@XXXX.optonline.net>,
> Liam Devlin <Li...@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Dude, if the viscosity of the oil measures SAE 5 at 0 F and SAE 20 at
>>212 F; the viscosity has increased as the oil warmed up, i.e., the oil
>>has not "thinned". That's the whole point of multi-grade oils.
>
> There is no SAE 5, and the SAE grade is not a viscosity measurement.
> Viscosity is measured in units like cSt (centistokes).
>
> Mobil 1 5W-30 (from their datasheet):
>
> Viscosity @ 40 C: 56 cSt
> Vicscosity @ 100 C: 10 cSt

What would the value be for straight SAE 40 oil st 100 C?

> Would you still claim that this oil has not thinned between 40 and 100 C?
> It's simply thinned less than a SAE 30 straight-weight would have. That's
> the whole point of multi-grade oils.

Okay, I believed the SAE grade was a measure of the oil's viscosity, my bad.

Liam Devlin

unread,
Jul 9, 2003, 11:00:40 PM7/9/03
to
Gml...@scvnet.com wrote:
> "Liam Devlin" <Li...@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3F0C6E1B...@XXXX.optonline.net...
>
>>Dude, if the viscosity of the oil measures SAE 5 at 0 F and SAE 20 at
>>212 F; the viscosity has increased as the oil warmed up, i.e., the oil
>>has not "thinned". That's the whole point of multi-grade oils.
>
> Well, the first word of your response says it all, but I will attempt to
> explain to you how viscosity is measured.

No need to be snide, I agreed with Matthew that it was my mistake.

Philip®

unread,
Jul 10, 2003, 2:58:52 AM7/10/03
to

George Macdonald wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:20:23 GMT, "Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Gml...@scvnet.com wrote:
>>>
>>> SAE 0. That doesn't mean that you want to actually use it at high
>>> temperatures!
>>>
>>> The viscosity determines how quickly the oil enters and leaves the
>>> bearings. If the exit clearances are small, then a higher viscosity
>>> oil will maintain a thicker oil film. The tradeoff is greater fluid
>>> friction. Of course, there is a limit to how thick you want to go
>>> in terms of cold start and oil pump performance.
>>>
>>> It is interesting to note that there are different oils specified
>>> for different markets. I really don't see enough environmental
>>> differences between Australia and the US to justify lower viscosity
>>> oil for the US. It seems that it has more to do with CAFE than with
>>> engine protection.
>>>
>>> Nobody ever blew an engine by using SAE30 oil in place of SAE20!
>>>
>>> George
>>
>> Well put, George. I agree regarding CAFE objectives while
>> marginalizing engine bearings. The ultra light oils should carry a
>> caveat that they are ONLY to be used in the lightest duty driving
>> cycles.
>
> The last time I looked at a case of 5W/20 in the auto parts store it
> had a clear, prominent warning that it was for use only in vehicles
> where specifically recommended by the auto mfr. I get the impression

> the lubricant companies are wary of this stuff. Me - I'll let
> someone else be the guinea pig.
>
> BTW Honda still recommends 10W/30 (not even 5W/30) for the S2000 and
> NSX. There has to be a reason.
>
> Rgds, George Macdonald

Good points. You and I are on the same page about the application of
these ULTRA thin engine lubricants. I would sum it up with the warning
label:

"The engine lubricant used to certify this vehicle's CAFE / EPA fuel
consumption was conducted under laboratory conditions and therefore may
not be at all suitable for your particular driving conditions."

Stephen Bigelow

unread,
Jul 10, 2003, 7:31:24 AM7/10/03
to

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:M88Pa.38996$C83.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> Good points. You and I are on the same page about the application of
> these ULTRA thin engine lubricants.

Gee.

You've previously stated, in this thread, that there is very LITTLE
difference between 5W-20 and 5W-30.

Change your mind?


Philip®

unread,
Jul 10, 2003, 9:52:39 AM7/10/03
to

In the context of the passage you are referring back to (reprinted
below) was at 30 degrees C (86 F) wherein I said that at that
temperature there is very little difference between 5w-20 and 5w-30.
This is due to the linear loss of viscosity in the range of 0F and 212F.
I have not changed my mind. When the lubricated parts and lubrication
oil has reached 212F, the bearing clearances are larger which is where
the 5w-20 will offer less "cushion" under periods of stress compared
(marginally) to a 5w-30 oil.

I know you are looking for some sticking point to validate youself
so.... my message to you is that I find 5w-20 suitable for CAFE / EPA
certification purposes (which are anything *but* stressful) with the
shortest of drain intervals; and 5w-30
acceptable for light duty driving cycles provided it is synthetic.

> Stephen Bigelow wrote:
> "Matthew Hunt" <m...@wopr.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:beffmc$h1f$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
>> In article
>> <N8HOa.99613$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>> Stephen Bigelow <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lighter oil flows slightly better during "cold*" starts, too.
>>
>> 5W-20 and 5W-30 will have similar viscosities in cold starts, since
>> they are both 5W.
>
> <Sarcasm>
> You're absolutely correct, of course, since all cold starts happen at
> 0F. <End sarcasm>
>
> You trimmed off the last, important line of my post, "*Even at 30C,
> it's still a cold start to the oil."
> Which flows better at 30C, 5W-20, or 5W-30?

No appreciable difference since the high end weight is measured at
212ºF. There is very very little real world difference between the two


oils throughout the anticipated operating range. 5w-20 is about CAFE
.... period.

noway

unread,
Jul 10, 2003, 10:24:33 AM7/10/03
to

"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4QBOa.89628$Io.78...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >noway wrote:
> >> It's easier to get 5W30, is that acceptable? Costco has the 5
> >> quart jugs really cheap.
> >
> > I wouldn't put 30 in where 20 is recommended. You can always call or
> > email Mobil, or the manufacturer to get there recommendations.
>
> To be quite blunk about it ... from what do you know about the real
> world difference between 5w-20 vs. 5w-30 and why the factory
> recommendation in the first place?

I just said I wouldn't put 30 in where 20 was recommend. I wouldn't do it.
Obviously its your car so if you wanted to put straight 50w in there that
would be your choice. Or alternativly you could just run it with no oil.


Matthew Hunt

unread,
Jul 10, 2003, 12:42:25 PM7/10/03
to
In article <3F0CD68...@XXXX.optonline.net>,
Liam Devlin <Li...@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote:

> > Viscosity @ 40 C: 56 cSt
> > Vicscosity @ 100 C: 10 cSt
>
> What would the value be for straight SAE 40 oil st 100 C?

12.5 - 16.3 cSt

(All of the SAE grades are ranges; SAE 30 is 9.3 - 12.5, so you can see
that the M1 listed above is on the thin side of the range, as are most of
the other Mobil 1 oils.)

Here is the viscosity chart I used as my source:

http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/oronitejapan/library/li_viscosity_motoroil.htm

Matthew Hunt

unread,
Jul 10, 2003, 1:08:08 PM7/10/03
to
In article <g8cPa.98412$a51....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Stephen Bigelow <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote:

> You've previously stated, in this thread, that there is very LITTLE
> difference between 5W-20 and 5W-30.

That may be closer to the truth than you would guess.

There is more difference in 100 C viscosity between Mobil 1 5W-30 and
Valvoline dino 5W-30 than there is between Mobil 1 0W-20 and Mobil 1
5W-30. (This is because the M1 30 weights are formulated at the thin
end on the SAE 30 range, while the 0W-20 is formulated at the extreme
thick end of its range.)

Philip®

unread,
Jul 10, 2003, 6:04:49 PM7/10/03
to

noway wrote:
> "PhilipŽ" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

Why? Do you know WHY you would only use 5w-20? Do you know WHY
Honda/Ford are now using 5w-20 in some of their engines when piston and
bearing clearances have not changed in 20 years? Don't regurgitate
"Because that's what the manual recommends."

JETman

unread,
Jul 10, 2003, 9:09:57 PM7/10/03
to

Liam Devlin wrote:
>
> Philip® wrote:
> > Stephen Bigelow wrote:
> >
> >>"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:yDJOa.35211$C83.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>>>Matthew Hunt wrote:
> >>>>In article
> >>>><N8HOa.99613$2ay....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> >>>>Stephen Bigelow <sbige...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Lighter oil flows slightly better during "cold*" starts, too.
> >>>>
> >>>>5W-20 and 5W-30 will have similar viscosities in cold starts, since
> >>>>they are both 5W.
> >>>
> >>>SO MANY non thinkers miss that fact.
> >>
> >>5W is NOT a cold start viscosity for me today.
> >>If it is for you, you must live at the South Pole.
> >

> > Nevada sees 0ºF .... many northern USA states see sub zero weather too.


> > Ya don't need snow to have these temperatures. Did you know that?

> > With 5w-30, 5w IS the viscosity you start with (at 32ºF) and oils only


> > THIN from that point as they warm, not thicken. Did you know that? ;^)
>
> Dude, if the viscosity of the oil measures SAE 5 at 0 F and SAE 20 at
> 212 F; the viscosity has increased as the oil warmed up, i.e., the oil
> has not "thinned". That's the whole point of multi-grade oils.

To make it simpler for you...

5W-30W multi viscosity oil will flow like a 5W at 0° and will flow like
a 30W oil that is heated to operating temperature at operating temperature.

OK?

--
Regards,

JT (Residing in Austin, Texas)

Just Tooling Down The Internet Superhighway With my G4.......

Liam Devlin

unread,
Jul 10, 2003, 9:37:48 PM7/10/03
to

Thanks very much for the info & link.

Gml...@scvnet.com

unread,
Jul 10, 2003, 10:28:09 PM7/10/03
to

"JETman" <jeta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F0E0F76...@worldnet.att.net...

> To make it simpler for you...
>
> 5W-30W multi viscosity oil will flow like a 5W at 0° and will flow like
> a 30W oil that is heated to operating temperature at operating
temperature.

Arrgh! No! Improper use of "W"!

The "W" following the first rating stands for "Winter", as in the cold
viscosity test used to simulate winter startup. You will never see a
SAE5W-30W oil as such an oil would have two different viscosity ratings at
the same low test temperature, which isn't possible. You will also not see
a SAE30W oil, as single-viscosity oils are always rated at high temperature.

The cold and hot designations don't compare with each other either. A
SAE10W oil may not have a viscosity of SAE10 at the higher test temperature.

George


Philip®

unread,
Jul 11, 2003, 1:40:44 AM7/11/03
to
Gml...@scvnet.com wrote:
>snip>

> You will never see a
> SAE5W-30W oil as such an oil would have two different viscosity
> ratings at the same low test temperature, which isn't possible. You
> will also not see a SAE30W oil, as single-viscosity oils are always
> rated at high temperature.
>
> The cold and hot designations don't compare with each other either. A
> SAE10W oil may not have a viscosity of SAE10 at the higher test
> temperature.
>
> George

Interesting too..... while SAE single grade oil viscosities at certified
at 212ºF (100ºC), the ISO / AGMA certifies single grade oil viscosities
at 104ºF (40ºC).

Here is a snippet (possibly controversial for the 5w-20 adherants) from
.... who else but, Amsoil:

I. SAE Grade
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Viscosity Grade is a system
based on viscosity measures taken from a variety of tests. This system
established eleven distinct motor oil viscosity classifications or
grades: SAE0W, SAE5W, SAE10W, SAE15W, SAE20W, SAE25W, SAE20, SAE30,
SAE40, SAE50 and SAE60. These are known as single grade or single
viscosity oils.

These grades correspond to specific ranges that the particular oil falls
into. The "W" in the classification indicates that the grade is
suitable for use in cold temperatures. (You can think of the "W" as
standing for "Winter".) The classifications increase numerically,
allowing you to tell the difference between them and what this
difference means. **In simple terms, the lower the number, the lower
the temperature at which the oil can be used for *safe* and effective
protection.** The higher the number, the better protection offered for
high heat and high load situations.

Single grade oils have a limited range of protection and so have a
limited number of uses. In order to increase an oil's usefulness, it
must be able to meet the requirements of two or more classifications.
Multi-grade or Multi-viscosity oils effectively meet the viscosity
requirements of two or more classifications. Examples of
multi-viscosity oils are SAE 5W-30, SAE 10W-30, SAE 15W-40, and SAE
20W-50. **The number with a "W" focuses on an oil's properties at low
temperatures. The number *without* a "W" characterizes properties at
high temperatures.** A multi-viscosity or multi-grade oil, e.g. 10W-30
meets the 10W criteria when cold and the 30 criteria once hot. SAE
5W-30
and SAE 10W-30 are widely used because under all but extremely hot or
cold conditions, they are light enough for easy engine cranking at low
temperatures, and heavy enough to protect satisfactorily at high
temperatures.

George Macdonald

unread,
Jul 11, 2003, 8:42:32 AM7/11/03
to

Hmmm, not sure if all those numbers are still good - they had to rework the
SAE numbers, due to the latest API specs, to avoid an overlap in a few of
the xW numbers. They're still a good guide though for the relative
performance of oils before the new specs.

George Macdonald

unread,
Jul 11, 2003, 8:42:33 AM7/11/03
to
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:24:33 GMT, "noway" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>"Philip®" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:4QBOa.89628$Io.78...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> >noway wrote:
>> >> It's easier to get 5W30, is that acceptable? Costco has the 5
>> >> quart jugs really cheap.
>> >
>> > I wouldn't put 30 in where 20 is recommended. You can always call or
>> > email Mobil, or the manufacturer to get there recommendations.
>>
>> To be quite blunk about it ... from what do you know about the real
>> world difference between 5w-20 vs. 5w-30 and why the factory
>> recommendation in the first place?
>
>I just said I wouldn't put 30 in where 20 was recommend. I wouldn't do it.

If no parts or tolerances had been changed between the engine with one
recommendation and the other, I'd want to know *WHY* the recommendation was
changed...<tap>...<tap>...<tap>

>Obviously its your car so if you wanted to put straight 50w in there that
>would be your choice. Or alternativly you could just run it with no oil.

There's no such thing as a "straight 50w" oil.

George Macdonald

unread,
Jul 11, 2003, 8:42:32 AM7/11/03
to
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:33:56 GMT, <Gml...@scvnet.com> wrote:

>
>"Liam Devlin" <Li...@XXXX.optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:3F0C6E1B...@XXXX.optonline.net...
>
>> Dude, if the viscosity of the oil measures SAE 5 at 0 F and SAE 20 at
>> 212 F; the viscosity has increased as the oil warmed up, i.e., the oil
>> has not "thinned". That's the whole point of multi-grade oils.
>
>Well, the first word of your response says it all, but I will attempt to
>explain to you how viscosity is measured.
>
>First, the SAE rating of the oil is _not_ a measure of its viscosity. It is
>a number to designate the viscosity range that the oil has been measured to
>conform to.
>
>Viscosity is measured by putting a sample of oil into a metal cup. The cup
>is surrounded by a water bath to keep the oil at the desired temperature.
>There is a hole in the bottom of the cup of a set diameter. The hole is
>unplugged, and the time required for a set amount of oil to drain out is
>measured. High viscosity means longer times, low viscosity means shorter
>times. One unit for this raw viscosity data is the stoke, but this unit is
>too large, so you will commonly see it stated in centistokes.

That's *one* way to measure viscosity but, having done more lubricant
viscosity tests than I care to remember, I don't recall using a cup with a
hole in the bottom... not to say that such a method is not used but I never
used it for lubricants Usually, to measure centiPoises, for conversion to
centiStokes, at room temp I used a glass tube with a calibrated reservoir
at the top and a calibrated restricted neck - don't recall ASTM numbers but
there are other ways: Saybolt, Universal etc... some involving a ball and
how long it takes to sink through a column of oil.

>There are two different temperatures at which the viscosity is measured.
>One is designed to determine the viscosity at low temperatures, the other at
>operating temperatures.

IIRC for the low temp viscosity, the W number, the temp is allowed to vary
to reflect the lower temperature for cold cranking: a 10W is measured at
-20C and a 5W is measured at -25C in the CCS (Cold Cranking Simulator)
test.

>I have actually performed these tests. There are some details I have left
>out, but this is the gist of how it is done.
>
>The SAE specificationd for the hot test gives a range of viscosity for which
>oils are given a rating of SAE 0, 5, 10, 15, and so on. If the viscosity
>falls into the range, it gets that SAE number.
>
>There is a separate set of specifications for the cold test, which are given
>ratings of SAE 0W, 5W, 10W, and so on. Again, if the viscosity falls into a
>certain range, it gets that SAE number.
>
>The two SAE numbers are _not_ comparable. If you take an oil that has a
>rating of SAE10W for the cold test, it will likely not have a rating of SAE
>10 for the high temperature test.

Right - they're not comparable but if it's not a multigrade, it's very
likely that a mineral based 10W oil will measure as a 10 at the higher
temp. Remember the 20W/20 we used to put in our air-cooled VWs in Winter?

Gml...@scvnet.com

unread,
Jul 11, 2003, 1:16:47 PM7/11/03
to

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:3f0ead23...@news.tellurian.com...

> >Viscosity is measured by putting a sample of oil into a metal cup. The
cup
> >is surrounded by a water bath to keep the oil at the desired temperature.
> >There is a hole in the bottom of the cup of a set diameter. The hole is
> >unplugged, and the time required for a set amount of oil to drain out is
> >measured. High viscosity means longer times, low viscosity means shorter
> >times. One unit for this raw viscosity data is the stoke, but this unit
is
> >too large, so you will commonly see it stated in centistokes.
>
> That's *one* way to measure viscosity but, having done more lubricant
> viscosity tests than I care to remember, I don't recall using a cup with a
> hole in the bottom... not to say that such a method is not used but I
never
> used it for lubricants Usually, to measure centiPoises, for conversion to
> centiStokes, at room temp I used a glass tube with a calibrated reservoir
> at the top and a calibrated restricted neck - don't recall ASTM numbers
but
> there are other ways: Saybolt, Universal etc... some involving a ball and
> how long it takes to sink through a column of oil.

Yes, the "real world" measuring methods have advanced from the old apparatus
I described. The standards and results are the same, though. I was trying
to keep it simple and easy to visualize for the "hey dude" generation.


noway

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 11:20:49 AM7/15/03
to
> > I just said I wouldn't put 30 in where 20 was recommend. I wouldn't
> > do it. Obviously its your car so if you wanted to put straight 50w in
> > there that would be your choice. Or alternativly you could just run
> > it with no oil.
>
> Why? Do you know WHY you would only use 5w-20? Do you know WHY
> Honda/Ford are now using 5w-20 in some of their engines when piston and
> bearing clearances have not changed in 20 years? Don't regurgitate
> "Because that's what the manual recommends."

Why? Because I'm not the engineer, and I'm not going to waste the time doing
the research to figure out why I would use something other than what is
recommended.

Use whatever you want in your car....


Matthew Hunt

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 1:06:54 PM7/15/03
to
In article <lZUQa.26057$R92....@news2.central.cox.net>,
noway <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Why? Because I'm not the engineer, and I'm not going to waste the time doing
> the research to figure out why I would use something other than what is
> recommended.

If the recommended grade is based purely on engineering principles, why
does the same car often take different grades in different countries?

Philip®

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 8:24:39 PM7/15/03
to

Geez... you took 5 days to post a rebuttal so richly economical in
thought.

Philip®

unread,
Jul 15, 2003, 8:25:05 PM7/15/03
to

Or for that matter, different oil drain intervals. Alternative
reasonings are economic projections and/or environmental goals.

noway

unread,
Jul 16, 2003, 1:12:14 PM7/16/03
to
> Geez... you took 5 days to post a rebuttal so richly economical in
> thought.

That was an intelligent comment. I'm sure you were hanging on your computer
for 5 days waiting for my reply weren't you. So sorry I didn't get back to
you sooner, I don't hang on the newsgroups every waking moment.


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages