04 honda pilot engine oil

On 22 Mar 2005 05:04:17 GMT, "TeGGer®" > wrote:

>"mike113" > wrote in
alkaboutautos.com:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
>5W-30 will do fine.
>
>The part-synthetic 5W-20 is intended so that Honda can more easily comply
>with government CAFE fuel economy regulations.

Everybody says that, but is there any case where a car's EPA rating
went up after Honda began recommending 5W-20? Maybe the CAFE numbers
are based on fuel economy figures calculated to three decimal places,
but I can't believe that this switch increases economy by even 1 mpg.

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.

I was under the impression that among similar oil "chemistries", a
higher viscosity (operating temp) oil also has higher film strength.
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.

I have heard that the API standards for 5W-20 oils allow for slightly
more zinc, and that many of the 5W-20 oils contain high levels of
molydenum. That - and pretty much all of the 5W-20's are essentially
semi-synthetics (as the term "synthetic" applies these days). That
doesn't mean I trust that the average 5W-20 will protect an engine
better than an average 5W-30.

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> Maybe the CAFE numbers
> are based on fuel economy figures calculated to three decimal places,
> but I can't believe that this switch increases economy by even 1 mpg.

I'm sure they are--even if it only goes up by 0.1 mpg, consider the fuel
savings over 1,000,000 vehicles.

Abeness > wrote in :

> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> Maybe the CAFE numbers
>> are based on fuel economy figures calculated to three decimal places,
>> but I can't believe that this switch increases economy by even 1 mpg.
>
> I'm sure they are--even if it only goes up by 0.1 mpg, consider the fuel
> savings over 1,000,000 vehicles.
>


Precisely, Watson.

For this very same reason, automakers will spend months working to to save
18¢ on one single part. Tiny things add up to big savings.

And in the case of fuel consumption, the government is looking at results
of carefully-controlled tests, and are interested only in aggregate figures
extrapolated over an automaker's entire fleet. 0.1mpg per car is
significant when measured over several million vehicles.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

"TeGGer®" > wrote in message
...
> Abeness > wrote in :
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> Maybe the CAFE numbers
>>> are based on fuel economy figures calculated to three decimal places,
>>> but I can't believe that this switch increases economy by even 1 mpg.
>>
>> I'm sure they are--even if it only goes up by 0.1 mpg, consider the fuel
>> savings over 1,000,000 vehicles.
>>
>
>
> Precisely, Watson.
>
> For this very same reason, automakers will spend months working to to save
> 18¢ on one single part. Tiny things add up to big savings.
>
> And in the case of fuel consumption, the government is looking at results
> of carefully-controlled tests, and are interested only in aggregate
> figures
> extrapolated over an automaker's entire fleet. 0.1mpg per car is
> significant when measured over several million vehicles.

I thought CAFE was Corporate Average Fuel Economy...and had little if
anything to do with total fuel used.

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.

>
> 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.

> 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 have heard that the API standards for 5W-20 oils allow for slightly
> more zinc, and that many of the 5W-20 oils contain high levels of
> molydenum. That - and pretty much all of the 5W-20's are essentially
> semi-synthetics (as the term "synthetic" applies these days). That
> doesn't mean I trust that the average 5W-20 will protect an engine
> better than an average 5W-30.

"jim beam" > wrote in message
news:1111640504.2c52f0d493c8ff3ae5e79fd1f173ccd5@t eranews...
> 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".

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n... 482260&rfi=6

An interesting read on racing oil weights.
0W-5!

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:45:18 -0500, "Steve Bigelow"
> wrote:

>
>"TeGGer®" > wrote in message
...
>> Abeness > wrote in :
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>> Maybe the CAFE numbers
>>>> are based on fuel economy figures calculated to three decimal places,
>>>> but I can't believe that this switch increases economy by even 1 mpg.
>>>
>>> I'm sure they are--even if it only goes up by 0.1 mpg, consider the fuel
>>> savings over 1,000,000 vehicles.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Precisely, Watson.
>>
>> For this very same reason, automakers will spend months working to to save
>> 18¢ on one single part. Tiny things add up to big savings.
>>
>> And in the case of fuel consumption, the government is looking at results
>> of carefully-controlled tests, and are interested only in aggregate
>> figures
>> extrapolated over an automaker's entire fleet. 0.1mpg per car is
>> significant when measured over several million vehicles.
>
>I thought CAFE was Corporate Average Fuel Economy...and had little if
>anything to do with total fuel used.

Precisely right. And a 0.1 mpg gain only matters if you are below the
mandated number (I think its 27 for cars and 21 for trucks) or are
banking credits in anticipation of dropping below in coming years.

Are these numbers publicly available? They should be. It would be
interesting to see how much difference a little oil viscosity makes.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:54:32 GMT, (Gordon
McGrew) wrote:


>Precisely right. And a 0.1 mpg gain only matters if you are below the
>mandated number (I think its 27 for cars and 21 for trucks) or are
>banking credits in anticipation of dropping below in coming years.

According to the CAFE site

http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html

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.

>Are these numbers publicly available? They should be. It would be
>interesting to see how much difference a little oil viscosity makes.

Lots of interesting stats at this site but nothing by manufacturer.
(Did you know that 54.4% of all asian imports in 1982 had front wheel
drive?)

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/