I wonder why Nissan put such light oil in my x-trail
Andy
as thin as kero! The car's been serviced at a Nissan dealer all it's life -
it's my ex company car that i've just bought.
I was so surprised i had to get the owners manual out to check what sort of
oil to use and it specified the normal 20-50 multi grade, so i filled it up
and changed the filter and it runs so much quieter now.
I've been driving for the last 60k and i've never noticed ANY difference in
noise after a service, so I'm thinking that it must have always had the thin
stuff in it.
What the heck did the Nissan dealer put into it?? AFAIK it's a reputable
dealer so I'm wondering if maybe i've put the wrong stuff in.
Kev
Probably has a synthetic oil in it
and you've just put mineral oil in it
either that or you've just drained the radiator
Kev
atec77
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
Jason James
"Andy" <an...@otusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c7cfac1$0$25325$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I would go with the synthetic oil theory. I dont like the stuff. It is way
too dear, and it doesnt follow the 0degrees Celsius---100 degree Celsius
temp-points that mineral oil does. I know because I tried it in a noisy
Cleveland, and despite it claiming a viscosity range of 10-50 it was not
operating at the same temp vs vis points that mineral oil does.. If I was
you, I'd put a mineral multigrade in it with the appropriate S* * standard.
I've 216,000 ks on my 16 valve Camry 4, and I've only ever used medium
priced mineral/multigrade "suitable for multi-valve and most diesels and
turbos" oils (whatever is on special at the time). Now my engine has a
demonstrated history of sludge problems (along with the 3L V6), yet I've had
it for 6 years and have put 80,000 ks on it with no sludge build-ups except
for a slight increase in some sort of black coating about 1/2 mm thick as
observed under the oil-hole cap.
For the last 4 years, I've been using the "Australian Gulf Western Oil" SL
20w-50 stuff priced under $20 for 4 litres with no problems.
Jason
John_H
>I've just done the 160k oil change in my '06 X-Trail, but what came out was
>as thin as kero! The car's been serviced at a Nissan dealer all it's life -
>it's my ex company car that i've just bought.
>
>I was so surprised i had to get the owners manual out to check what sort of
>oil to use and it specified the normal 20-50 multi grade, so i filled it up
>and changed the filter and it runs so much quieter now.
Are you sure the owners manual specifies 20W-50 multigrade (there's no
such thing as 20-50)?
A common error is to mistake the diagram that's supposed to explain
how viscosity ratings work for the recommendation... which it isn't!
Recommended oil for the 2.5L X-Trail is 5W-30 (according to my
listing). Recommendation for the 2L diesel is 5W-30 _synthetic_.
I don't know of any car manufactured in the last 10 years that's
supposed to use 20W-50. Nor is the API classification of a normal
20W-50 oil likely to meet later model specs.
>I've been driving for the last 60k and i've never noticed ANY difference in
>noise after a service, so I'm thinking that it must have always had the thin
>stuff in it.
>
>What the heck did the Nissan dealer put into it?? AFAIK it's a reputable
>dealer so I'm wondering if maybe i've put the wrong stuff in.
So am I! :)
If it's any consolation plenty seem make the same mistake and get away
with it... but I dunno for how long. If it were mine I'd change it
pronto, but make sure to recheck the manufacturer's recommendation
first.
--
John H
Scotty
"Kev" <kev...@optunet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c7d0317$0$25362$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
:o) Cheers Kev, fancied a laugh
:
:
: Kev
Oz...@crackerbox-palace.com
wrote:
20-50.....I don't think so!
OzOne of the three twins
I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
^Tems^
hahahahaaha
Jason James
"John_H" <john...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:b4vr769pl0mlnv5ld...@4ax.com...
John, do you agree the viscosity rating for synthetics doesnt seem to match
the equivalent or close to equivalent viscosity ratings for mineral oil?
Reason I ask, I had a cleveland which was a little on the low-OP side. I had
been running 20w-50, and on a whim and a prayer, I decided to use a
synthetic which was rated 10w-40. This oil was terrible in the cleveland.
The engine was very noisey and OP was down even further. Now the t/stat ran
the engine at 180F I expected the vis of the synthetic at that temp to be in
the high 30s. The mineral oil would have been in the high 40s. Yet the
difference in OP and engine noise seemed to indicate there was a far greater
difference than 10 points. Any comments ?
thks JJ
Andy
>>dealer so I'm wondering if maybe i've put the wrong stuff in.
>
> So am I! :)
>
> If it's any consolation plenty seem make the same mistake and get away
> with it... but I dunno for how long. If it were mine I'd change it
> pronto, but make sure to recheck the manufacturer's recommendation
> first.
>
> --
> John H
Thanks John
The owners manual isn't comlpetely clear.
There's a chart that indicates that for outside air temperatures
between -10deg C and 40+deg C to use 20W-50 or 20W-40. Below the chart it
states;
"5W-30 is preferable. If 5W-30 is not available, select the viscosity, from
the chart, that is suitable for the outside temperature range."
OK - that seems fairly straight forward, however, over the page it says
5W-20 should only be used for QR engines (mine's a QR) 5W-20 is not suitable
for sustained high-speed driving.
Hmm.... What they mean by high-speed? Normal highway speeds (110kmh)?
Cheers
Andy
> Are you sure the owners manual specifies 20W-50 multigrade (there's no
> such thing as 20-50)?
>
> A common error is to mistake the diagram that's supposed to explain
> how viscosity ratings work for the recommendation... which it isn't!
> Recommended oil for the 2.5L X-Trail is 5W-30 (according to my
> listing). Recommendation for the 2L diesel is 5W-30 _synthetic_.
>
> I don't know of any car manufactured in the last 10 years that's
> supposed to use 20W-50. Nor is the API classification of a normal
> 20W-50 oil likely to meet later model specs.
>
>
>
> --
> John H
Sorry, I didn't see this part of your post in my other reply.
Yep - manual definitely states 20-50 or 20-40.
There's at least 3 different Valvoline products that are rated 20-50
http://www.valvoline.com.au/pdf/Essential%20Guide%20to%20Motor%20Oil%20Brochure%20FINAL.pdf
I used the XLD Plus
Cheers
Oz...@crackerbox-palace.com
wrote:
Recomendations are the same for our MX5s
Go with the 5-30 or even 5-40 for summer in Oz.
I've switched to Castrol Edge Synth in a 0-40 as recommended by
Castrol and use this all year round including track days with no
problems.
John_H
>
>The owners manual isn't comlpetely clear.
>
>There's a chart that indicates that for outside air temperatures
>between -10deg C and 40+deg C to use 20W-50 or 20W-40. Below the chart it
>states;
>"5W-30 is preferable. If 5W-30 is not available, select the viscosity, from
>the chart, that is suitable for the outside temperature range."
That's a poor explanation at best, since the chart as I understand it
(every car manufacturer uses the same chart) isn't meant to indicate
the viscosity correlation in the upper temperature range. Logically
the highest ambient temperature shouldn't affect the viscosity choice
for a modern engine anyway, since the oil runs way above ambient at
normal operating temperature.
The W ratings are the important part of the chart as they indicate the
"borderline pumping temperature"... ie the minimum temperature at
which the oil will still flow. For example 5W becomes a solid frozen
chunk below -30°C, 10W has a borderline pumping temperature of -25.
Look at the chart again and they're the numbers that should
correspond. Whatever the minimum temperature you're likely to
encounter the lower the W number the better the oil will flow at
startup (and of course the ambient temperature at startup should
always be well above BPT).
What they're actually trying to tell you is if 5W-30 isn't available
your next choice should be 10W-30.
The other thing the manual should specify is the minimum API and/or
ACEA requirement. Valvoline XLD plus 20W-50 is API SL, ACEA A2, for a
petrol engine (I'm assuming your's is). Apart from a 50 grade oil
being too heavy for a modern engine the API and/or ACEA
classifications will possibly be inadequate as well.
Personally I'd go for a 10W-30 mineral oil as you'll probably only be
able to get 5W-30 in synthetic which costs a heap more for dubious
gains. Shell Helix HX7 AJ 10W-30 can usually be had from Autobarn,
Supercheap, Repco, etc, for around $30 for 4 litre, as can one of
Castrol's offerings (might be called Edge). You should find the Shell
recommendation for your car here....
http://cropping.elders.com.au/elders-lube-match
>OK - that seems fairly straight forward, however, over the page it says
>5W-20 should only be used for QR engines (mine's a QR) 5W-20 is not suitable
>for sustained high-speed driving.
>
>Hmm.... What they mean by high-speed? Normal highway speeds (110kmh)?
Not likely to be an issue since I'd doubt if anyone markets a 5W-20 in
Oz. All they're saying is that a 20 grade oil is too light for your
engine, same as a 50 grade is way too heavy... which they probably
should say but don't.
--
John H
John_H
>
>John, do you agree the viscosity rating for synthetics doesnt seem to match
>the equivalent or close to equivalent viscosity ratings for mineral oil?
The numbers mean the same for both, but you won't usually find both
with the same numbers... if that's what you mean. That's to say
10W-30, 15W-40 and 20W-50 will all be mineral oils whereas 5W-30,
10W-40 and 15W-50 will be synthetics. 5W-30 (synthetic) and 10W-30
(mineral) will be interchangeable in the same engine but they're not
exactly the same thing.
>Reason I ask, I had a cleveland which was a little on the low-OP side. I had
>been running 20w-50, and on a whim and a prayer, I decided to use a
>synthetic which was rated 10w-40. This oil was terrible in the cleveland.
>The engine was very noisey and OP was down even further. Now the t/stat ran
>the engine at 180F I expected the vis of the synthetic at that temp to be in
>the high 30s. The mineral oil would have been in the high 40s. Yet the
>difference in OP and engine noise seemed to indicate there was a far greater
>difference than 10 points. Any comments ?
10 points of what????
The SAE numbers aren't an open ended viscosity scale, they're merely
numbers assigned as replacements for the original Pennsylvanian oil
classifications. You might recall the days when Castrol used to use
both... XL was SAE 30 IIRC.
A common misconception that illustrates the point is if you mix equal
parts of SAE 30 and SAE 40 you end up with SAE 35. You don't (and
there's no such thing as SAE 35). No prize for the correct answer. :)
In fact the actual viscosity of a 50 grade engine oil (measured in
centistokes) can vary by a considerable amount within the SAE
classification. Most synthetics exploit this by being at the lower
end of the specified range, since their main advantage over their
mineral counterparts is their greater viscosity index (VI). Doing it
that way exaggerates the advantage.
But just in case I've lost you at this point, synthetics aren't the
way to go in buggered engines where you're looking for the exact
opposite property (you're looking to decrease oil flow not increase
it). Neither is a 10W-40 synthetic a substitute for a 20W-50 mineral
oil, it's a direct replacement for 15W-40, even though it's true
viscosity will always be less through the whole temperature range (and
its flow rate will always be greater).
The other one that's often misunderstood is that gear oil uses an
entirely different scale. For those who might be tempted to put 90
gear oil in their buggered engines, it's actually a bit lighter than
40 engine oil!
--
John H
Jason James
> Jason James wrote:
>>
>>John, do you agree the viscosity rating for synthetics doesnt seem to
>>match
>>the equivalent or close to equivalent viscosity ratings for mineral oil?
>
> The numbers mean the same for both, but you won't usually find both
> with the same numbers... if that's what you mean. That's to say
> 10W-30, 15W-40 and 20W-50 will all be mineral oils whereas 5W-30,
> 10W-40 and 15W-50 will be synthetics. 5W-30 (synthetic) and 10W-30
> (mineral) will be interchangeable in the same engine but they're not
> exactly the same thing.
I thought you could draw a chart with temp on the Y axis and "viscosity" on
the X axis. For want of more knowledge, I'd assume the plotted line would be
linear?
>>Reason I ask, I had a cleveland which was a little on the low-OP side. I
>>had
>>been running 20w-50, and on a whim and a prayer, I decided to use a
>>synthetic which was rated 10w-40. This oil was terrible in the cleveland.
>>The engine was very noisey and OP was down even further. Now the t/stat
>>ran
>>the engine at 180F I expected the vis of the synthetic at that temp to be
>>in
>>the high 30s. The mineral oil would have been in the high 40s. Yet the
>>difference in OP and engine noise seemed to indicate there was a far
>>greater
>>difference than 10 points. Any comments ?
>
> 10 points of what????
10 points of viscosity change?
> The SAE numbers aren't an open ended viscosity scale, they're merely
> numbers assigned as replacements for the original Pennsylvanian oil
> classifications. You might recall the days when Castrol used to use
> both... XL was SAE 30 IIRC.
>
> A common misconception that illustrates the point is if you mix equal
> parts of SAE 30 and SAE 40 you end up with SAE 35. You don't (and
> there's no such thing as SAE 35). No prize for the correct answer. :)
OK,.the long chain oil molecules do effect a change of viscosity, but mixing
two together wont work,..AI understand that.
> In fact the actual viscosity of a 50 grade engine oil (measured in
> centistokes) can vary by a considerable amount within the SAE
> classification.
How's that?
Most synthetics exploit this by being at the lower
> end of the specified range, since their main advantage over their
> mineral counterparts is their greater viscosity index (VI). Doing it
> that way exaggerates the advantage.
There's a belief around, that synthetic oil has a poorer "channeling"
property than mineral. This maybe because it is used in modern close
tolerance engines, where a higher film-strength would work against
flowability.
> But just in case I've lost you at this point,
Only to the extent you dont seem to agree that the two numbers ie lower is
at 0 degrees C, and the higher at 100 degrees C, means there is a
progressive shift in viscosity between these two temp points which maybe
linear or not.
synthetics aren't the
> way to go in buggered engines where you're looking for the exact
> opposite property (you're looking to decrease oil flow not increase
> it). Neither is a 10W-40 synthetic a substitute for a 20W-50 mineral
> oil, it's a direct replacement for 15W-40, even though it's true
> viscosity will always be less through the whole temperature range (and
> its flow rate will always be greater).
Why will the viscosity always be less? This is the point I dont understand
:-)
> The other one that's often misunderstood is that gear oil uses an
> entirely different scale. For those who might be tempted to put 90
> gear oil in their buggered engines, it's actually a bit lighter than
> 40 engine oil!
An oil rep also added that EP oils at engine operating temps will lose their
high viscosity rendering them instead close to engine oil vis ratings.
Jason
Andy
Thanks for providing such a detailed answer John, much appreciated.
I'll be changing to 10W-30 *bugger*.
Oh well, at least I can keep the 20W-50 I stuck in it for my old mower.
Cheers
John_H
>"John_H" <john...@inbox.com> wrote in message
>news:t5ju76ho8csestq00...@4ax.com...
>> Jason James wrote:
>>>
>>>John, do you agree the viscosity rating for synthetics doesnt seem to
>>>match
>>>the equivalent or close to equivalent viscosity ratings for mineral oil?
>>
>> The numbers mean the same for both, but you won't usually find both
>> with the same numbers... if that's what you mean. That's to say
>> 10W-30, 15W-40 and 20W-50 will all be mineral oils whereas 5W-30,
>> 10W-40 and 15W-50 will be synthetics. 5W-30 (synthetic) and 10W-30
>> (mineral) will be interchangeable in the same engine but they're not
>> exactly the same thing.
>
>I thought you could draw a chart with temp on the Y axis and "viscosity" on
>the X axis. For want of more knowledge, I'd assume the plotted line would be
>linear?
Nope. The SAE grades aren't a viscosity scale, linear or otherwise.
They're arbitrary numbers used to replace an older system that was
purely descriptive. The old grades of light, medium, heavy medium,
heavy and extra heavy were replaced with the numbers 20, 30, 40 and
50... ie four numbers replaced five grades (as they were originally
classified). SAE 60 is a recent addition.
The numbers 0W, 5W, 10W, 15W, 20W, 25W were added in the 1950's to
designate the multigrades.
ISO Viscosity Numbers (you'll see them on hydraulic oils) do use a
scale, but it's based on midpoint viscosity (40°C) and has little or
no relevance to engine oils.
>>>Reason I ask, I had a cleveland which was a little on the low-OP side. I
>>>had
>>>been running 20w-50, and on a whim and a prayer, I decided to use a
>>>synthetic which was rated 10w-40. This oil was terrible in the cleveland.
>>>The engine was very noisey and OP was down even further. Now the t/stat
>>>ran
>>>the engine at 180F I expected the vis of the synthetic at that temp to be
>>>in
>>>the high 30s. The mineral oil would have been in the high 40s. Yet the
>>>difference in OP and engine noise seemed to indicate there was a far
>>>greater
>>>difference than 10 points. Any comments ?
>>
>> 10 points of what????
>
>10 points of viscosity change?
Measured how???
The actual viscosity range corresponding to the SAE numbers is
contained in the SAE classification standards (SAE J300 if you want to
google it) which provides for minimum and maximum 100° kinematic
viscosities for each of the grades 20 through to 60. _The SAE numbers
don't represent a scale or absolute viscosities_.
>> The SAE numbers aren't an open ended viscosity scale, they're merely
>> numbers assigned as replacements for the original Pennsylvanian oil
>> classifications. You might recall the days when Castrol used to use
>> both... XL was SAE 30 IIRC.
>>
>> A common misconception that illustrates the point is if you mix equal
>> parts of SAE 30 and SAE 40 you end up with SAE 35. You don't (and
>> there's no such thing as SAE 35). No prize for the correct answer. :)
>
>OK,.the long chain oil molecules do effect a change of viscosity, but mixing
>two together wont work,..AI understand that.
Which is irrelevant to the example above, since the SAE numbers tell
you nothing about the viscosity index.
If you know the differences, and similarities, between oils labeled
SAE 20, SAE 20W, and SAE 20W-x0, which has all to do with the long
chain polymer VI improvers, then you've understood it. It's not meant
to be a trick question BTW. :)
Neither is the previous example of mixing SAE 30 and SAE 40. The clue
might be that those numbers represent monogrades, not multigrades.
>> In fact the actual viscosity of a 50 grade engine oil (measured in
>> centistokes) can vary by a considerable amount within the SAE
>> classification.
>
>How's that?
Because 50 isn't a measure of actual viscosity. It covers a range of
kinematic viscosities.
> Most synthetics exploit this by being at the lower
>> end of the specified range, since their main advantage over their
>> mineral counterparts is their greater viscosity index (VI). Doing it
>> that way exaggerates the advantage.
>
>There's a belief around, that synthetic oil has a poorer "channeling"
>property than mineral. This maybe because it is used in modern close
>tolerance engines, where a higher film-strength would work against
>flowability.
Flow is determined by the kinematic viscosity in both instances, which
doesn't mean that a 40 grade synthetic will be the same as a 40 grade
mineral oil... for the reasons I've already tried to explain. Any
inference that synthetics are somehow inferior is pure fantasy...
whether it's worth paying a premium for it in all cases is another
story entirely.
>> But just in case I've lost you at this point,
>
>Only to the extent you dont seem to agree that the two numbers ie lower is
>at 0 degrees C, and the higher at 100 degrees C, means there is a
>progressive shift in viscosity between these two temp points which maybe
>linear or not.
The W number doesn't indicate the viscosity at 0°C, as you seem to
suppose. It relates to the borderline pumping temperature, but isn't
part of any temperature scale either. The relationship between
viscosity and temperature is a function of the viscosity index (VI),
which you'd expect find in the product data sheet (but not on the
container).
> synthetics aren't the
>> way to go in buggered engines where you're looking for the exact
>> opposite property (you're looking to decrease oil flow not increase
>> it). Neither is a 10W-40 synthetic a substitute for a 20W-50 mineral
>> oil, it's a direct replacement for 15W-40, even though it's true
>> viscosity will always be less through the whole temperature range (and
>> its flow rate will always be greater).
>
>Why will the viscosity always be less? This is the point I dont understand
>:-)
Because the oilcos choose to do it that way for reasons I've
previously tried to explain. Synthetics will typically fall at the
lower end of the kinematic viscosity range defined in SAE J300.
>> The other one that's often misunderstood is that gear oil uses an
>> entirely different scale. For those who might be tempted to put 90
>> gear oil in their buggered engines, it's actually a bit lighter than
>> 40 engine oil!
>
>An oil rep also added that EP oils at engine operating temps will lose their
>high viscosity rendering them instead close to engine oil vis ratings.
The viscosity classifications for gear oils have different
specifications (SAE J306) and there's no direct relationship between
the two sets of numbers.
FWIW company reps typically know SFA about the physical properties of
oils and the way they're classified. Oilcos employ graduate engineers
for that job.
--
John H
Jason James
[. . .]
Thanx John. I understand now. It was probably a function of me being used to
electronic issues that blinkered me. BTW, you would be astounded how many
people in the retailing game, believe the 0 degrees to 100c fax pa !
Jason
John_H
>
>Thanx John. I understand now. It was probably a function of me being used to
>electronic issues that blinkered me. BTW, you would be astounded how many
>people in the retailing game, believe the 0 degrees to 100c fax pa !
It's a myth that's been around for as long as multigrade oils, and
which is still widely propagated by those who ought know better.
These days it's a gross over simplification of the real story.
Wiki has what looks like a pretty good (and accurate) take on the
topic, although I haven't read it in its entirety....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_oil
--
John H
John_H
>
>Oh well, at least I can keep the 20W-50 I stuck in it for my old mower.
It's actually a poor choice for a lawnmower as well. If it happened
to be a Briggs & Stratton you'd void the warranty (unless they've had
a recent change of heart). :)
--
John H
atec77
> Andy wrote:
>>
>> Oh well, at least I can keep the 20W-50 I stuck in it for my old mower.
>
> It's actually a poor choice for a lawnmower as well. If it happened
> a recent change of heart). :)
>
--
X-No-Archive: Yes