mobile 1
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Air Filter
Next: 1991 Cressida Timing
From: C. E. White on 10 Oct 2007 15:30 "Mark A" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:mgXOi.4130$Qa.1074(a)bignews4.bellsouth.net... >> "Steve" <no(a)spam.thanks> wrote in message >> news:9eSdnYLR9JHNAZbanZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d(a)texas.net... >> Or, maybe, you buy an engine that specifies a 0w30 oil..... :-) >> >> Personally I greeted the oddball 5w20 rating with a lot of skepticism, >> however a lot of OEMs do specify it. I'm sure that the main reason is to >> improve CAFE mileage performance, but its also a perfectly adequate >> lubricant for those engines. > > If I ever did purchase a car that specified 5W-20, I might switch to Mobil > 1 Extended Performance, which is not considered an energy saving formula > compared to regular Mobil 1. This would give me the extra protection that > might be needed with a 5W-20, and at the same time get better mileage than > a regular 5W-30 synthetic. My SO's 2007 RAV4 4 cylinder specifies 5W20 or 0W20. I have been using the API certified version of Mobil 1 (not the extended performance version) in her car. I think lots of 2007 Toyotas specify 5W20. Fords I have owned have been specifying 5W20 for a number of years. I used the Ford 5W20 syntehtic blend in my 2003 Expedition for as long as I owned it (90k miles) and never had any problems. When I sold the truck the engine ran as well as it did when new and it never needed any oil added between changes. The difference in fuel econmy between 5W20 and 5W30 is very small. I think Ford was claiming 0.3% (3 tenths of one percent). While this might be significant on a national basis, or for CAFE calculations, but I doubt you could detect the difference in everyday situations. Ed White
From: Comboverfish on 10 Oct 2007 16:24 On Oct 10, 2:30 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > My SO's 2007 RAV4 4 cylinder specifies 5W20 or 0W20. I have been using the > API certified version of Mobil 1 (not the extended performance version) in > her car. I don't have the bottles in front of me to read, but I have to believe that both Mobil products are API SM. You would be hard pressed to find an oil that doesn't pass that minimum set of performance standards. Are you sure that Extended Performance isn't API cert? I thought that it surpassed it (like A5/B5)...? > I think lots of 2007 Toyotas specify 5W20. It's the direction they are going. > Fords I have owned have > been specifying 5W20 for a number of years. Ford seems to have led the pack on the lower viscosity movement. > I used the Ford 5W20 syntehtic > blend in my 2003 Expedition for as long as I owned it (90k miles) and never > had any problems. Good, since they grenade at exactly 100K :-) > The difference > in fuel econmy between 5W20 and 5W30 is very small. I think Ford was > claiming 0.3% (3 tenths of one percent). While this might be significant on > a national basis, or for CAFE calculations, but I doubt you could detect the > difference in everyday situations. Exactly. Toyota MDT in MO
From: Mark A on 10 Oct 2007 22:45 "Comboverfish" <comboverfish(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > I don't have the bottles in front of me to read, but I have to believe > that both Mobil products are API SM. You would be hard pressed to > find an oil that doesn't pass that minimum set of performance > standards. Are you sure that Extended Performance isn't API cert? I > thought that it surpassed it (like A5/B5)...? The Extended Performance version of Mobil 1 is not an "energy conserving formula" like the regular version. In other respects Extended Performance Mobil 1 meets or exceeds the specs of regular Mobil 1. Both are API SM certified.
From: C. E. White on 11 Oct 2007 08:02 "Comboverfish" <comboverfish(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1192047885.644075.109040(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 10, 2:30 pm, "C. E. White" <cewhi...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > >> My SO's 2007 RAV4 4 cylinder specifies 5W20 or 0W20. I have been >> using the >> API certified version of Mobil 1 (not the extended performance >> version) in >> her car. > > I don't have the bottles in front of me to read, but I have to > believe > that both Mobil products are API SM. You would be hard pressed to > find an oil that doesn't pass that minimum set of performance > standards. Are you sure that Extended Performance isn't API cert? > I > thought that it surpassed it (like A5/B5)...? > >> I think lots of 2007 Toyotas specify 5W20. > > It's the direction they are going. > >> Fords I have owned have >> been specifying 5W20 for a number of years. > > Ford seems to have led the pack on the lower viscosity movement. Honda was close behind. I read a couple of SAE papers on the advantages of 5W20. One was written by Toyota Engineers. The following quote is from this paper: From SAE Paper 982506 - "4. FUEL ECONOMY IMPROVEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPED 5W-20 OIL "The fuel economy improvement capability of the 5W-20 oil was determined in vehicle testing with six engine types (after 10,000 km break-in) using the Japanese 10-15 and the FTP test modes. The test results shown in Fig. 7 compare fuel economy improvement of the SAE 5W-20 oil with a baseline SAE 5W-30 ILSAC GF-2 oil without MoDTC and sulfur compounds. The results clearly show that the SAE 5W-20 oil improves fuel economy by 1.2% to 2.0% as compared to SAE 5W-30 oil." "4.1 FUEL ECONOMY RETENTION - "...In initial operation, both the prototype and the fuel economy 5W-20 oils showed a large improvement of 3.5% over the 5W-30 oil. As operation continued, the prototype oil lost some of its effectiveness. However, the fuel economy 5W-20 oil retained its fuel efficiency at 5,000 km and only partially lost it at 10,000 kilometers...In another word, fuel economy improvement after 10,000km accumulation was more than 2.5% compared to the 5W-30 oil..." "CONCLUSION "The results of the studies of fuel efficiency of a newly developed SAE 5W-20, ILSAC GF-2 oil conducted with various types of modern engines show that: "1. The optimum HTHS viscosity to improve fuel economy without increasing wear or oil consumption in typical Toyota engines is 2.6 mPa�s, which corresponds to the SAE 5W-20 grade..." >> I used the Ford 5W20 syntehtic >> blend in my 2003 Expedition for as long as I owned it (90k miles) >> and never >> had any problems. > > Good, since they grenade at exactly 100K :-) Ha Ha. I kept my first Expedtion for 150K miles and it ran perfectly when I traded it for the second. I belonged to an Expedition mailing list and many list member have Expeditions well over 200K miles. >> The difference >> in fuel econmy between 5W20 and 5W30 is very small. I think Ford >> was >> claiming 0.3% (3 tenths of one percent). While this might be >> significant on >> a national basis, or for CAFE calculations, but I doubt you could >> detect the >> difference in everyday situations. > > Exactly. > > Toyota MDT in MO >
From: C. E. White on 11 Oct 2007 08:19
"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote in message news:lh9rg3pqb2bk0e1asl3mrem2ahds9c2i8m(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:34:22 -0400, tnom(a)mucks.net wrote: > >> >>>I refer folks to some of Dr. Haas' writings at this web page: >>> >>>http://ferrarichat.com/forum/faq.php?s=24e0725dc8adb142babe1958586368ba&faq=haas_articles#faq_motor_oil_basics >> >>There's more to oil selection than just this viscosity argument. >> >>The wider the range, 0w-50 compared to 10w-30,the more >>solid particles are included in the formula. The particles under >>heat, stress and age can settle out and contribute to forming >>sludge. So it's best not to use an oil at a wider range than >>you actually need > > > That's a new one. What I've always heard is that the wider the > range > the longer the polymer chains that form the molecules. In the "old > days" the polymer chains broke down from the heat and stress and > when > they broke into smaller chains the oil loses it's higher viscosity. > Then you wind up with an oil that thins out way too much at high > temps, that leads to low oil pressure, thin films, further > breakdown, > and then it all just goes to hell and sludge forms. Actually, the viscosity of motor oil usually increases with age and usage - it becomes thicker, not thinner (assuming there is not a problem with excessive blow-by). Ed |