Enginr oil weight question

[JCH13]

Wow so you want to triple down on stupid?

Please show me where the "oil channels" got smaller, or how the oil pump is weaker now from all that "thicker oil" stress, etc... You and others keep making claims yet the SAME motors called for different oils.

This was 100% for CAFE reasons. If you have REAL PROOF I would love to see it.

You keep saying this despite Ford issuing their memo specifically stating: "Some customers are reluctant to follow Ford's recommendation to use 5W-20 oil in their engines based on the incorrect assumption that Ford and other Auto Manufacturers only recommend 5W-20 oil in order to increase fuel economy."

Where is your real proof? Why do you insist on believing something that directly contradicts what the manufacturer has published?

Edit: Perhaps the biggest flaw in your CAFE argument is that CAFE standards apply to cars that are currently for sale, not cars currently out in the wild. So there is absolutely no reason to retroactively change an oil spec to meet CAFE standards. The only logical reason to change oil spec for engines that are still under warranty is to improve their reliability.

 

[jlee]

You keep saying this despite Ford issuing their memo specifically stating: "Some customers are reluctant to follow Ford's recommendation to use 5W-20 oil in their engines based on the incorrect assumption that Ford and other Auto Manufacturers only recommend 5W-20 oil in order to increase fuel economy."

Where is your real proof? Why do you insist on believing something that directly contradicts what the manufacturer has published?

I bet he knows more about fuel economy than those Korean engineers, too. :awe:

 

[Jimzz]

You keep saying this despite Ford issuing their memo specifically stating: "Some customers are reluctant to follow Ford's recommendation to use 5W-20 oil in their engines based on the incorrect assumption that Ford and other Auto Manufacturers only recommend 5W-20 oil in order to increase fuel economy."

Where is your real proof? Why do you insist on believing something that directly contradicts what the manufacturer has published?

Edit: Perhaps the biggest flaw in your CAFE argument is that CAFE standards apply to cars that are currently for sale, not cars currently out in the wild. So there is absolutely no reason to retroactively change an oil spec to meet CAFE standards. The only logical reason to change oil spec for engines that are still under warranty is to improve their reliability.

You are the one saying its the oil clearances, or bearing clearances, etc... That was also a PR release, not something engineers sent out. But I guess you believe anything you are told right? So we can ignore the SAME motors that called for 5w30 magically are now better with 5w20. Or those same engines outside the US called for 5w30 while in the US they called for 5w20.

You are the one making claims of clearances, thicker oil wearing pumps, etc... yet you keep dancing around when I asked you to back that up.

 

[JCH13]

You are the one saying its the oil clearances, or bearing clearances, etc... That was also a PR release, not something engineers sent out. But I guess you believe anything you are told right? So we can ignore the SAME motors that called for 5w30 magically are now better with 5w20. Or those same engines outside the US called for 5w30 while in the US they called for 5w20.

You are the one making claims of clearances, thicker oil wearing pumps, etc... yet you keep dancing around when I asked you to back that up.

First of all, I never claimed that anything I said was God's honest truth, simply some of the many aspects of an engine that are affected by oil viscosity. Second of all, I'm not going to do research to prove that any of my points are correct, since that would be silly. They're hypotheticals to try to expand your narrow view of this subject, and you likely wouldn't believe me even if I did.

I am basing my opinion on the published information I've read, my insight as an engineer with automotive experience, anecdotes from people like Greenman that plausibly offer insight, and my own personal experience in racing and wrenching.

If you can find a single shred of evidence (other than more people on the internet) to suggest that these changes are a result of fuel economy standards, please, do share. Otherwise I've got your word and your faulty analysis of circumstantial evidence against Ford's published word (engineer, bean counter, or otherwise). Figuring out which one carries more weight is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[Jimzz]

First of all, I never claimed that anything I said was God's honest truth, simply some of the many aspects of an engine that are affected by oil viscosity. Second of all, I'm not going to do research to prove that any of my points are correct, since that would be silly. They're hypotheticals to try to expand your narrow view of this subject, and you likely wouldn't believe me even if I did.

I am basing my opinion on the published information I've read, my insight as an engineer with automotive experience, anecdotes from people like Greenman that plausibly offer insight, and my own personal experience in racing and wrenching.

If you can find a single shred of evidence (other than more people on the internet) to suggest that these changes are a result of fuel economy standards, please, do share. Otherwise I've got your word and your faulty analysis of circumstantial evidence against Ford's published word (engineer, bean counter, or otherwise). Figuring out which one carries more weight is left as an exercise for the reader.

Yes the SAME motors used 5w30 then magically called for 5w20 with NO changes to the motor, oil filters, pumps, etc... That and the same motors calling for 5w20 in the US were still calling for 5w30 outside that had no CAFE standards/rules.

So in other words you have no proof, color me shocked.

 

[chucky2]

OP:

The long and short is this: For a properly functioning non-tracked (where fuel dilution would be a concern) normal vehicle, as long as you use a quality oil and change it within a reasonable timeframe/OCI, the rest of the vehicle will need replacement before you have to get into the engine because of a lubrication issue related to too light of an oil being used at temperature (cold, even a 0W-20 is thicker than 40W hot).

Given their benefit at startup, there is almost no reason for most people to consider using a 30W oil when the manufacturer calls for a 20W.

The End.

Chuck

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Yes the SAME motors used 5w30 then magically called for 5w20 with NO changes to the motor, oil filters, pumps, etc... That and the same motors calling for 5w20 in the US were still calling for 5w30 outside that had no CAFE standards/rules.

So in other words you have no proof, color me shocked.

This applies to the first gen Lincoln LSes. Original factory spec of 5W30, later revised to match that of the 2nd gens (5W20).

 

[Bartman39]

Now Children lets play nice together ok...

I do not want to put any body in time out or have to issue things that people do not like so lets keep it together OK...


BTW this is the only resemblance to a warning anyone will get GOT IT...!

 

[JCH13]

Yes the SAME motors used 5w30 then magically called for 5w20 with NO changes to the motor, oil filters, pumps, etc... That and the same motors calling for 5w20 in the US were still calling for 5w30 outside that had no CAFE standards/rules.

So in other words you have no proof, color me shocked.

I was up-front about not having any proof beyond the linked article, I don't know why you'd be shocked. I offered insight as my opinion, not fact. How many times must I say that?

Clearly Ford analyzed the performance of 5W20 and deemed it acceptable as a replacement for 5W30 in those engines. Just like their brief stated: going with a thinner oil improves cooling and flow volume over a more viscous oil.

I guess I wonder why you'd think that using a more viscous oil that recommended would be a good idea? Also, why do you seem to think there's a big Ford conspiracy to improve fuel economy behind our backs? I'm still confused why you're so apt to think that Ford is simply outright lying to everyone in a completely needless fashion. What gives?

 

[Jimzz]

I was up-front about not having any proof beyond the linked article, I don't know why you'd be shocked. I offered insight as my opinion, not fact. How many times must I say that?

Clearly Ford analyzed the performance of 5W20 and deemed it acceptable as a replacement for 5W30 in those engines. Just like their brief stated: going with a thinner oil improves cooling and flow volume over a more viscous oil.

I guess I wonder why you'd think that using a more viscous oil that recommended would be a good idea? Also, why do you seem to think there's a big Ford conspiracy to improve fuel economy behind our backs? I'm still confused why you're so apt to think that Ford is simply outright lying to everyone in a completely needless fashion. What gives?

So you are dropping all your claims now? sigh...

Again, its called CAFE. Its very basic and known in the automotive field. Even a little better gas mileage can save millions of dollars for large automobile companies.
Maybe look it up before making wild claims about clearances, oil passages, etc... next time.

 

[jlee]

So you are dropping all your claims now? sigh...

Again, its called CAFE. Its very basic and known in the automotive field. Even a little better gas mileage can save millions of dollars for large automobile companies.
Maybe look it up before making wild claims about clearances, oil passages, etc... next time.

I find it sad that you don't appear to understand the very informative (and accurate) information that was presented in this thread.

 

[ummduh]

Generally if you're in the ballpark of the original weight it's not going to make any bit of difference for the majority of people on here.

Used to be, the owner's manual would state different weight oils to use based on the climate the vehicle was being used in. I've noticed the last few I've bought don't do this anymore, nor do I really care.. I don't keep stuff long enough to really care anymore. But in the past, running literally whatever I got my hands on never ever caused any problems.

I could tell the difference between 5w20 and 15w50, though. You could really notice the extra power it took to pump the 50 weight after it was switched back out for something more reasonable.

At the end of the day it isn't really as big of a deal as so many people on the internet make it out to be. *for MOST people* IMHO

 

[Pulsar]

You are the one saying its the oil clearances, or bearing clearances, etc... That was also a PR release, not something engineers sent out. But I guess you believe anything you are told right? So we can ignore the SAME motors that called for 5w30 magically are now better with 5w20. Or those same engines outside the US called for 5w30 while in the US they called for 5w20.

You are the one making claims of clearances, thicker oil wearing pumps, etc... yet you keep dancing around when I asked you to back that up.

Do you understand what would happen if that "PR" release disagreed with the known facts inside the company? It's a word that starts with "law" and ends with "suit". You're grasping at straws man.

 

[JCH13]

So you are dropping all your claims now? sigh...

Again, its called CAFE. Its very basic and known in the automotive field. Even a little better gas mileage can save millions of dollars for large automobile companies.
Maybe look it up before making wild claims about clearances, oil passages, etc... next time.

I never made any claims. I offered ways in which oil viscosity affects various engine components because you were dead-set on pointing at main bearing clearances as evidence of some oil viscosity conspiracy from Ford without any consideration to anything else.

As of yet you have provided zero evidence to support your argument that Ford changed their oil recommendations for some of their engines to improve fuel economy, despite their press release stating the exact opposite.

You have offered no explanation as to why they might blatantly lie (why wouldn't they just say "we're making this change to comply with CAFE standards?), nor any explanation as to why they would jeopardize engines still under warranty. As discussed the oil weight change would make a 0.6% fuel economy difference. Do you think Ford would risk blowing up engines under warranty to save $5.50/0.1mpg/car in CAFE fees? It wouldn't take many under-warranty engine swaps to make that savings go away! Not to mention to damage to their reputation and, if they were lying in their released memo, the class-action lawsuit that would follow.

Furthermore, CAFE standards apply to the current model year only (as far as I can tell, please show me evidence to the contrary) so it wouldn't save Ford any money in CAFE fees to retroactively change oil weights. The older fleet's fuel economy testing is already done, so Ford wouldn't measure, or get credit for, fuel economy changes to prior MY cars.

TL;DR: your argument about CAFE standards makes no sense to me for the following reasons:

1. Ford would have needlessly lied in a published document, exposing them to lawsuits for no gain
2. If the lower weight oil actually put engines at risk, Ford would likely lose more in replacing engines than the minor savings in CAFE fees, if applicable, not to mention the damage to their reputation
3. CAFE fees appear to apply to current MY cars only, so changing oil requirements for older cars wouldn't save them any money, especially since these fleets wouldn't be re-tested for fuel economy (which is quite expensive)

I'll ask you again to at least offer an explanation for any of these points, if not provide some evidence against them. I'll ask again, why would Ford lie about changing oil weights to meet CAFE targets? Like Pulsar said, you're grasping at straws right now, trying to believe in a conspiracy that doesn't exist. Stop pretending that I was claiming to present facts when I have said I wasn't several times. Address the points I raised with evidence or even a logical explanation and you'll convince me that you're right.

 

[eng2d2]

In my opinion JCH and Jimzz both have valid argument. Thanks to both.

 

[Bartman39]

End of discussion...