If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
y_p_w wrote:
> > jim beam wrote: > >> y_p_w wrote: > >>> That being said, Honda never redesigned their engines for 5W-20. The >>> "mandating" of 5W-20 was likely more a business decision than an >>> engineering choice. The same (or similar) Honda engines sold elsewhere >>> in the world are doing fine on 5W-30 or 10W-30. In a temperate >>> climate where I live, it might be fine. If it gets really hot, I'd >>> worry that the oil might be excessively thin. I'd think anyone who's >>> really freaked out, but still wants to follow the 5W-20 recommendation >>> might consider installing an aftermarket (fin type) oil cooler. >>> >> you don't need to reengineer the engine - you reengineer the oil. as >> long as it maintains its film & lubricity in the face of the kinds of >> conditions the 4-ball test doesn't consider, who cares? as far as i'm >> concerned, any oil, dino or syn, that uses the same technology as that >> which can keep a 18,000 rpm, 1,000+ hp, at >> i-don't-know-how-many-degrees F1 engine on the track for two hours is >> quite good enough for me thanks very much. "thinness" is irrelevant. > > > An F1 engine isn't going to be using Pennzoil 5W-20. Last season, > the Ferrari team was using Shell Helix F1SL785, which isn't exactly > available to the general public. And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race? |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
jim beam wrote:
> y_p_w wrote: > > > > > > jim beam wrote: > > > >> y_p_w wrote: > > > > > >>> That being said, Honda never redesigned their engines for 5W-20. The > >>> "mandating" of 5W-20 was likely more a business decision than an > >>> engineering choice. The same (or similar) Honda engines sold elsewhere > >>> in the world are doing fine on 5W-30 or 10W-30. In a temperate > >>> climate where I live, it might be fine. If it gets really hot, I'd > >>> worry that the oil might be excessively thin. I'd think anyone who's > >>> really freaked out, but still wants to follow the 5W-20 recommendation > >>> might consider installing an aftermarket (fin type) oil cooler. > >>> > >> you don't need to reengineer the engine - you reengineer the oil. as > >> long as it maintains its film & lubricity in the face of the kinds of > >> conditions the 4-ball test doesn't consider, who cares? as far as i'm > >> concerned, any oil, dino or syn, that uses the same technology as that > >> which can keep a 18,000 rpm, 1,000+ hp, at > >> i-don't-know-how-many-degrees F1 engine on the track for two hours is > >> quite good enough for me thanks very much. "thinness" is irrelevant. > > > > > > An F1 engine isn't going to be using Pennzoil 5W-20. Last season, > > the Ferrari team was using Shell Helix F1SL785, which isn't exactly > > available to the general public. > > maybe, but some definitely use mobil 1. istr valvoline being a > prominent sponsor as well. my point was that the /technology/ used in > F1 is still used in ordinary oils. What I was getting at wasn't the technology, but that the final product isn't going to be the same. The Ferrari team wasn't using an off the shelf motor oil in their F1 engines, and its viscosity was probably too thick for your average street car driven in sub- desert temps. I wouldn't be surprised if the oil was somehow preheated. I doubt there's any technology going into these 5W-20 oils that one can't find in current off the shelf 5W-30. > > I was under the impression that among similar oil "chemistries", a > > higher viscosity (operating temp) oil also has higher film strength. > > i'm not a tribologist, but i don't believe that's true. you can use air > as a bearing/lubricant in some applications, so viscosity isn't the > final factor. as i understand it, the ability of the oil to stick to > the surface of the material is the key. the additive packages in some > modern oils are pretty darned impressive. I was only thinking it's one of several factors. My understanding is that all things being equal, a thicker (operating temp) oil will have a higher thin film strength. Of course not all things are equal. The API standard for 5W-20 allows for more zinc (compared to 5W-30/10W-30), and several of the oils in this weight are reputed to contain rather high levels of molybdenum anti-wear additives. > > Add extreme conditions (cooling system failure) and the film strength > > of a thinner oil may not be enough. Although 5W-20 may be good for > > most applications, it's still a "once size fits all" solution that > > seems to be geared towards fuel economy. I still wouldn't use it > > if I owned a Pilot and was towing a small boat. Maybe 10W-30. > > with respect, this is just supposition. i want facts. last time i was > in a tire shop, i was listening to a guy make his choice based on which > "looked more aggressive". was he a hydrodynamasist? how about polymer > scientist? chemist? no. in other words, his was an utterly uninformed > decision. when i hear stuff about "thicker is better", i think "tire dude". I wasn't thinking "thicker is better" under all circumstances. A good many automakers do have additional recommendations for extreme conditions such as towing or desert heat. My latest owner's manual says to use straight weight (30 or 40), 20W-40, or 20W-50 in such cases, when 5W-30 is the recommended year-round oil for normal driving conditions. If I lived in Arizona, I'd probably just junk all that and use Mobil 1 10W-30 year round, and throw in a yearly oil analysis to make sure it was working OK. I just sent a sample to Blackstone Labs this week. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
y_p_w wrote:
> jim beam wrote: > >>y_p_w wrote: >> >>> >>>jim beam wrote: >>> >>> >>>>y_p_w wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>That being said, Honda never redesigned their engines for 5W-20. > > The > >>>>>"mandating" of 5W-20 was likely more a business decision than an >>>>>engineering choice. The same (or similar) Honda engines sold > > elsewhere > >>>>>in the world are doing fine on 5W-30 or 10W-30. In a temperate >>>>>climate where I live, it might be fine. If it gets really hot, > > I'd > >>>>>worry that the oil might be excessively thin. I'd think anyone > > who's > >>>>>really freaked out, but still wants to follow the 5W-20 > > recommendation > >>>>>might consider installing an aftermarket (fin type) oil cooler. >>>>> >>>> >>>>you don't need to reengineer the engine - you reengineer the oil. > > as > >>>>long as it maintains its film & lubricity in the face of the kinds > > of > >>>>conditions the 4-ball test doesn't consider, who cares? as far as > > i'm > >>>>concerned, any oil, dino or syn, that uses the same technology as > > that > >>>>which can keep a 18,000 rpm, 1,000+ hp, at >>>>i-don't-know-how-many-degrees F1 engine on the track for two hours > > is > >>>>quite good enough for me thanks very much. "thinness" is > > irrelevant. > >>> >>>An F1 engine isn't going to be using Pennzoil 5W-20. Last season, >>>the Ferrari team was using Shell Helix F1SL785, which isn't exactly >>>available to the general public. >> >>maybe, but some definitely use mobil 1. istr valvoline being a >>prominent sponsor as well. my point was that the /technology/ used > > in > >>F1 is still used in ordinary oils. > > > What I was getting at wasn't the technology, but that the final > product isn't going to be the same. The Ferrari team wasn't using > an off the shelf motor oil in their F1 engines, and its viscosity > was probably too thick for your average street car driven in sub- > desert temps. I wouldn't be surprised if the oil was somehow > preheated. > > I doubt there's any technology going into these 5W-20 oils that > one can't find in current off the shelf 5W-30. > > >>>I was under the impression that among similar oil "chemistries", a >>>higher viscosity (operating temp) oil also has higher film > > strength. > >>i'm not a tribologist, but i don't believe that's true. you can use > > air > >>as a bearing/lubricant in some applications, so viscosity isn't the >>final factor. as i understand it, the ability of the oil to stick to > > >>the surface of the material is the key. the additive packages in > > some > >>modern oils are pretty darned impressive. > > > I was only thinking it's one of several factors. My understanding is > that all things being equal, a thicker (operating temp) oil will have > a higher thin film strength. Of course not all things are equal. The > API standard for 5W-20 allows for more zinc (compared to 5W-30/10W-30), > and several of the oils in this weight are reputed to contain rather > high levels of molybdenum anti-wear additives. > > >>>Add extreme conditions (cooling system failure) and the film > > strength > >>>of a thinner oil may not be enough. Although 5W-20 may be good for >>>most applications, it's still a "once size fits all" solution that >>>seems to be geared towards fuel economy. I still wouldn't use it >>>if I owned a Pilot and was towing a small boat. Maybe 10W-30. >> >>with respect, this is just supposition. i want facts. last time i > > was > >>in a tire shop, i was listening to a guy make his choice based on > > which > >>"looked more aggressive". was he a hydrodynamasist? how about > > polymer > >>scientist? chemist? no. in other words, his was an utterly > > uninformed > >>decision. when i hear stuff about "thicker is better", i think "tire > > dude". > > I wasn't thinking "thicker is better" under all circumstances. A good > many automakers do have additional recommendations for extreme > conditions such as towing or desert heat. My latest owner's manual > says to use straight weight (30 or 40), 20W-40, or 20W-50 in such > cases, when 5W-30 is the recommended year-round oil for normal driving > conditions. If I lived in Arizona, I'd probably just junk all that > and use Mobil 1 10W-30 year round, and throw in a yearly oil analysis > to make sure it was working OK. I just sent a sample to Blackstone > Labs this week. > oil analysis is a /very/ smart thing to do every now & then! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Sparky Spartacus" > wrote in message ... > And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very > different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race? Nope. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On 25 Mar 2005 01:10:35 GMT, "TeGGer®" > wrote:
(Gordon McGrew) wrote in : > > >> >> the penalty for missing the target is $5 per vehicle per 0.1 mpg. So >> if you are below the mandated 27.5 mpg, a change across the car line >> that gave you an extra 0.1 mpg would be worth $5 per car. Yeah, I >> know times 6 million vehicles that's $30 million but this is big >> business and you are still only talking about $5 on a $20,000 car. >> And if your CAFE is already 27.5 its worth nothing. > > > >$30 million is $30 million. Doesn't matter what kind of business you're in, >$30 million OFF YOUR BOTTOM LINE is VERY significant. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they don't just throw $30 million away. But, when your profit is about $5B, it is less than 1% - not VERY significant in my judgement. >Considering that in most businesses about 90% of your gross (or more) ends >up being bills to be paid, you protect the remaining 10% as best you can, >hence the existence of 5W-20 part-synthetic. > >Who knows how close Honda is to that 27.5 limit?If they slip below, it's an >instant $30 million tax. Smart businessmen are careful not to let that sort >of thing happen. It may well be that CAFE is one reason Honda is not >currently heavily involved in light trucks, and not in V8s. North America, >primarily the US, is the world's foremost market for large engines with low >fuel mileage. And the US is the *only* country with any sort of CAFE >nonsense. The system could be easily fixed but it would require the political will to do so. The big car companies didn't want it to change so it hasn't. But the big car companies (you know the two I mean) are getting smaller and they may be overruled some day. Or maybe gas will go to $6 a gallon and make CAFE irrelevant. >CAFE costs Ford tens of millions every year, again, right off the bottom >line. Honda does not want to be Ford; Ford loses money. Honda does not. IMO, the reason Honda makes money is that Honda looks forward beyond the next quarter. Saving $5 a car today is not worth ****ing off even 1% of your customers. That's why I wouldn't be worried about running 5W-20 in a Honda that specified it. Higher price and limited availability would **** me off a little though. Ford loses money because they are greedy *******s. They will burn you to death for $5 a car. Great in the short run but it tends to discourage repeat purchases. >It may also be that Honda is planning for further expansion into larger >vehicles (think Ridgeline), and is banking CAFE credits in preparation for >that. Honda manufactures most of its large vehicles, like the Odyssey and >the Ridgeline, in North America, so it has a separate CAFE quota to meet >for those cars. Don't be naive, its much more complex than that. Ody, Pilot, Ridgeline are all trucks built in NA. As such they are separate from cars. And they may even be separate from each other if some are domestic and others are import. But, you say, they are all made in North America. They could still be either domestic or import depending on whether domestic content exceeds 75%. By manipulating the sourcing of a few parts you can flip NA factory output from domestic to import and back again to manipulate your numbers. Of course the ultimate dodge would be a Honda Suburban which is not even covered by CAFE. But, 0.1 mpg is still only worth $5 per car. >Since there is literally no way to predict or plan for the consequences of >any sort of governmental action, it makes sense for Honda to grab every >straw that waves its way, since you never know when it might be needed. >Hence the 5W-20 part-synthetic. Not sure I understand this. What is the part-syhnthetic? Does Honda require that in 5W-20? Is that why someone was saying it was "only" an extra $1 per quart? It sounds like Honda is just inefficiently transferring costs to its customers. Wouldn't you prefer that Honda just charge you $5 (or $15) dollars more for the car than get hit for a $1 on every quart of oil? (You might recover a third of that $1 on fuel savings but you won't notice that.) >There's also the "green" factor. Honda already is run by safety nuts, and >they've been proponents of the "green" thing since CVCC days. I wouldn't be >surprised if Honda is trying for that last 0.1mpg on philosophical grounds. Heh heh, I wonder if it was the safety nuts or the greens that set the Accord Hybrid to be the fastest model in the Accord lineup. I don't doubt that Honda has more of a soul than most car companies but I don't think they are quite as zen as to want their tree to crash in the forest if no one hears it. Honda has made great advances in safety and environment but they usually don't hide their efforts. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:34:40 -0500, "Steve Bigelow"
> wrote: > >"Sparky Spartacus" > wrote in message ... >> And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very >> different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race? > >Nope. This year they have to go two races. Unless they blow up in the first one. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Bigelow wrote: > "Sparky Spartacus" > wrote in message > ... > >>And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very >>different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race? > > > Nope. I believe engine rebuilds occurred in the past. I recall reading and article in AutoWeek about Ferrari selling several of their used F1 cars for a cool $2M each. Apparently each engine had a service life of 300 miles, which could be doubled if the rev limiter was dropped 1000 RPM. Most F1 races are under 200 miles I believe. I seem to recall there are (or it was proposed) rules that an F1 engine must be able to last an entire race weekend, including qualifying. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"y_p_w" > wrote in message ink.net... > > > Steve Bigelow wrote: >> "Sparky Spartacus" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>>And is probably not a good choice for a street engine, anyway, very >>>different criteria. Are F1 engines torn down after every race? >> >> >> Nope. > > I believe engine rebuilds occurred in the past. I recall reading > and article in AutoWeek about Ferrari selling several of their > used F1 cars for a cool $2M each. Apparently each engine had a > service life of 300 miles, which could be doubled if the rev limiter > was dropped 1000 RPM. Most F1 races are under 200 miles I believe. > > I seem to recall there are (or it was proposed) rules that an F1 > engine must be able to last an entire race weekend, including > qualifying. Two races this year. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2005 01:10:35 GMT, "TeGGer=AE" > wrote: > > >Since there is literally no way to predict or plan for the > >consequences of any sort of governmental action, it makes sense > >for Honda to grab every straw that waves its way, since you never > >know when it might be needed. Hence the 5W-20 part-synthetic. > > Not sure I understand this. What is the part-syhnthetic? Apparently most of the 5W-20 oil (even the ones sold as "conventional") contain higher quality base oil. It may be PAO or a higher quality hydrocracked petroleum oil (which is sometimes marketed as "synthetic" these days). They might also boost certain other antiwear additives to compensate for the thinness at operating temps. It might cost more to make a properly formulated 5W-20, but I suppose it can be absorbed across the entire lineup of oil weights. > Does Honda require that in 5W-20? Apparently yes, with the caveat that 5W-30 is OK as an emergency backup. However - I don't recall that Honda is recommending 5W-20 except in North America for the exact same engines. > Is that why someone was saying it was "only" > an extra $1 per quart? It sounds like Honda is just inefficiently > transferring costs to its customers. Wouldn't you prefer that Honda > just charge you $5 (or $15) dollars more for the car than get hit for > a $1 on every quart of oil? (You might recover a third of that $1 on > fuel savings but you won't notice that.) Most of the 5W-20 oil I've seen on store shelves recently doesn't command a premium over the other offerings in the same "product line". OTOH - it's hard to find the 5W-20 in many of the cheaper brands. I rented a Mazda 6 last Dec. They actually took it to a quickie lube place and the sticker specifically said they used Mobil 5W-20. Newer Mazdas come with a 5W-20 recommendation similar to Ford's. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
mike113 > wrote:
> Hi, honda recommends to use 5w-20 oil but can i also use 5w-30 oil instead. > Cause they are easier to find in stores and are cheaper. I had a little trouble finding 5w-20 for my Mustang in 1996, but I did. My 2003 Civic calls for 0w-20, and that's what I use. That's even harder to find, but you only have to find the source once. My '96 Mustang had 120,000 miles on 5w-20 oil when I sold it. My '00 Durango had 91,000 miles on 5w-20 oil when I sold it. My '03 Civic has 40,000 miles on 0w-20 oil. I change oil at the factory recommended normal service intervals. So longevity with 5w-20 doesn't seem to be the issue. I haven't noticed the price, but the 5w-20 seemed to be the same as other weights. -- --- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Engine cuts off - '98 Honda Civic EX | Ken Bell | Technology | 3 | February 9th 05 10:04 PM |
2000 Honda Odyssey Check Engine Lights - Epidemic? | sundance | Honda | 3 | January 5th 05 11:58 PM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 10 | December 18th 04 05:15 AM |
rec.autos.makers.chrysler FAQ, Part 1/6 | Dr. David Zatz | Chrysler | 10 | December 2nd 04 05:19 AM |