WHATS THE BEST OIL? 0W20? GOOD?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ekpolk @ Aug 7 2006, 09:52 PM) [snapback]299419[/snapback]</div>

I actually use the German-made Castrol Syntec 0W-30 in my dad's 2003 Buick LeSabre, and only change the oil when the oil life monitor tells us to. Typically once a year or so. If you carefully look at the specs, it's the only Castrol product that meets the tougher ACEA oil specs.

It's also a bargain too, as it's priced the same as the inferior hydrotreated Syntec oils. About $1.50 a litre cheaper than Mobil 1 at my local Canadian Tire. I love the smell of the oil, like a fresh package of Gummi Bears.

I have thought of using it in my Prius but wonder what effect - if any - the thicker running viscosity would have on fuel economy. So far my UOA running Mobil 1 0W-30 and 0W-20 have been very good.

 

I switched to Amsoil at the second oil change.
1st at 500 miles
2nd at 3000 miles

I use the Amsoil xl2000
https://www.amsoil.com/storefront/tso.aspx

it is a 0w30 product with a 35,000 lifespan
You just have to change the oil filter (their super-cereal one) every 6 months or at 17,500 miles.
I am now on my second year now and when I changed the oil after one year and almost 35,000 miles it was black, but super smooth, with now residue, filings or lumpiness.
Plus I got an extra 2 mpg's. (which sadly are now eaten up by the new Goodyear comfortreads, but a god what a an improvement in ride and sound!)

I think the "0" is better than the "5" for start-up viscosity, but probably doesn't matter as much due to the Toyota pre-oiler.

 

No MPG loss with the GC, in fact if anything, it's a bit *better* than the Amsoil 0W30 I had in there before, which showed no difference in MPG that I could detect vs. the Mobil 1 0W30 I used before that, which was perhaps marginally better than the Toyota-branded 5W30 dino oil that the previous owner had in there before I bought the car, but all in all, MPG due to oil is a rather difficult thing to quantify as there are so many other factors..

Now apparently, the 5W30 hydrocracked Castrol syntec actually passes the ACEA A3/B3 spec, which has higher fuel economy standards than the A1 which the 0W30 passes, but living in Canada, we hit the -35 C or lower in the winter, and in the summer, we've hit +39 C this year, so it should be OK for the summer, but my feeling is that a 5W is marginal for a Canadian winter, which is why I've always used a 0W oil and in particular, I'm tending towards a 0W20 this winter instead of a 30.. The fact that the 5W Castrol is only a Group 3 oil gives me pause, although in the 70s and 80s, the only oil my father and I used was Gulf (and eventually PetroCan here in Canada) motor oil, which I believe was the first company to sell hydrocracked (HT- Hydrotreated) oil, so if you believe the Castrol approach, I've been using a "synthetic" for a really long time..

Personally, my feeling is that if you're just making more of the same thing that is available naturally (ie, alkanes and cycloalkanes), it's synthesis, but not synthetic (I've got a tank of hydrogen and some oxygen that I'm going to burn- anyone want to buy some "synthetic water"??) PAOs and esters which are not found in crude to any great concentration on the other hand do qualify in my books as synthetic, ie, you've made something that does not occur naturally to any great degree..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 8 2006, 01:11 PM) [snapback]299696[/snapback]</div>

It would be prudent to do a used oil analysis, especially if the oil was black. It's rather difficult and subjective to just look at the oil, or feel it between your fingers.

I'm sure Amsoil is a good product, but I'm a bit put off by what appears to be a MLM company (Multi Level Marketing). The Canadian Tire stores in Winnipeg carry Amsoil 0W-30, 5W-30, 10W-40, and for motorsports 0W-40, at $10 a litre. That's about $3-$8 a litre cheaper than what the MLM Amsoil dealers are charging.

Running an oil that long I would at the very least want to know what reserve TBN is left. Wear metals, particle count, and a viscosity check would also be prudent.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Norman H. Renehan @ Aug 8 2006, 01:06 PM) [snapback]299692[/snapback]</div>

It would probably not harm the motor to change the oil at 1,000 initial miles, but it also won't harm the motor to go the full distance. I waited until 8,000km and the oil had only turned dark brown. Seems rather wasteful, not to mention the environmental effects, of changing the oil so soon.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(c4 @ Aug 8 2006, 01:47 PM) [snapback]299710[/snapback]</div>

Especially when you consider that a 5W-xx only has to work to about -30 C, any area with consistently low winter temps you benefit from a 0W-xx oil. As you may recall, I had very good results this last winter running Mobil 1 0W-20 in my Prius.

I run Esso XD-3 0W-40 in my tractor at the hobby farm as a winter oil. I can buy a 4 litre jug for $22 at Wally World, and that is one hell of a bargain for a heavy duty diesel motor oil. They also make XD-3 in a 0W-30, but I have no experience with it.

 

C4:

Outstanding! I’ll be looking forward to using up some of my GC in the Prius, once I get to it. I’ll be trying to change a minimum of factors so that I can maximize the ability to discern whether the thicker oil drags mileage down any.

As far as I know, the 0w-30 is the only Syntec 30 wt that actually meets the ACEA A3 rating (and has the high HT/HS vis). Per the information currently on their site, this is the case, although as you know, such things can change overnight. See here, Castrol MDS page.

I am also “conservative†in my interpretation of the term “syntheticâ€, but we’re the losers in this battle. One can simply no longer rely upon the term, but rather, if it matters, you have to go to the sources and find out what the base oils really are. That “synthetic water†analogy is beautiful. Wish I’d thought of that one.


Devil’s Ad:

I agree with Jayman. I’ve done some fairly long OCIs myself, with appropriate syns, but with UOA too. My reading of the current Amsoil info is that they’ve backed up just a tad, and are now a bit stronger in recommending UOA to support the really long OCIs. If you’ve run any, I would be very curious to see how it turned out (fine, probably, but your margins for error are a lot slimmer than mine with "long" 10k OCIs).


Norman:

As Jayman indicated, no harm either way. It’s your car, have some fun and do whatever you want with it (well, don’t go 50k without changing, of course...). I’d also suggest trying a UOA or two along the way. It’s fun (and addictive). You don’t have to do one with every oil change either, and a basic analysis can be had for just around $25. So much of what we talk about regarding oil and its use is based upon guessing, speculation, and presumption. One UOA will give you a very good idea of how your bearings, rings, valves, etc. are doing. In my opinion anyway, knowing is so much better than guessing and hoping.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rand Reed @ Aug 7 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]299379[/snapback]</div>

Might want to do some research on using Fram oil filters. They have a reputation as having the worst quality control of any aftermarket oil filter and have been suspected of being the cause of engine failures.

As background, it wasn't always this way. Many years ago, when Bendix made Fram oil filters, they had a reputation as being one of the best available. However, Martin Marietta bought Bendix, then Martin Marietta was subsequently bought by Allied Signal.

Since they've owned the Fram name, Allied Signal has cheapened the way Fram oil filters were made and correspondingly increased the advertising. There have been many variations on the marketing they've employed to 'improve' the Fram oil filters, but they're generally accepted as nothing more than marketing gimmicks devised solely to increase sales and profit with little real value as to improving the quality of the oil filters.

Frankly, while the car is still under warranty, I've always used the manufacturer's oil filters. It's possible to get them (usually online) at a price not much more than the aftermarket filters (albeit in quantity), but it's a small price to pay as insurance should there actually be any sort of internal engine failure.

Using a manufacturer's oil filter immediately eliminates any type of claim a manufacturer might have against customer based on the use of an aftermarket oil filter by saying the aftermarket filter contributed (if not outright caused) an internal engine problem under warranty and they would then be able to void the claim.

 

That's my hand, crushing the flimsy, Fram oil filter element. It was surprisingly easy.


Below is what you find inside a Champion Labs filter (this example, obviously, is an M1). Notice how study the element is, cemented securely into rigid metal end caps. This is probably way overkill construction. While M1 and K&N cost more than OEM, you can buy a Bosch Premium (not standard Bosch) for OEM price, with the same CL skeleton. Toyota OEM is a good product too, although some of them have paper end caps too, but they're sturdier than the Fram. I should add that I've tried to hand crush a CL filter element, and it's simply impossible.


So, which would you prefer to have attached to your transportation investment???

 

When my 1984 Ford F-150 used to be my daily driver, I usually ran Mobil Delvac 1 5W-40 in it, changing every year or two based on UOA. Around 10 years ago I had a sudden spike in metals, changed the oil and filter, and on a hunch cut open the orange can Fram Extra Guard PH-8A filter I had been using.

Yeah, it seemed a bit flimsy all right. The media had a nice split in it all the way across, letting unfiltered oil enter the motor. Never used an orange can Fram Extra Guard PH-8A ever again.

However the white can Fram Tough Guard appears to be a completely different filter. Here it costs almost twice as much, but after I cut one open I found a tough media, no cardboard, and far sturdier overall construction.

Since I only put on 50-100km a year on my Ford truck at the hobby farm, I no longer go for extended oil changes in it. I change the oil and filter twice a year: summer I run Esso XD-3 15W-40, winter I run Esso XD-3 0W-40, with the white can Fram Tough Guard filter. I use the heavy duty diesel motor oil to minimise the effects of all that condensation in the motor from just sitting there.

 

I bought a pile of the high-end Fram Extended-Guard synthetic filters back when Canadian Tire had them on sale for the same price as the regular Frams.. From the BITOG forums, the consensus is that while the regular Frams are crap, these synthetic filters are top-of-the-line and every bit as good as the competing top-end filters: heavy duty metal end caps, steel mesh backing on the media (which is actually unique to Fram), high quality synthetic media (vs. the usual paper fibre media), silicone rubber seals and valves, but the regular price is something like $12.99, in other words, almost twice the price of their cheap filter and still $3-4 more than a premium competitive filter, so I would expect nothing less than premium construction..

I don't know about the Tough Guard though- the last time I checked, these were still cardboard-ended, but they had the better synthetic media.. Are you sure you got a Tough-Guard and not the Extended-Guard?

 

The element you see me hand-crushing above came from inside an OCOD (Orange Can of Death...). Seriously, that's of course the base model Fram.

Perhaps it's time for me to sacrifice a few more bucks for science and perform a couple more dissections. They're really easy to open up with an exhaust cutting tool (~$20 at PepBoyz), except again for the OCOD, whose can skin is much thinner than the others I've cut up (about 10 or so), such that it tends to collapse while I'm trying to make a clean cut. You also, of course, have to be very careful of sharp edges on all brands.

I'll report back on "alternate Fram" insides in a few days.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(c4 @ Aug 9 2006, 10:39 AM) [snapback]300205[/snapback]</div>

It was around 5 years ago last time I cut one open, and I honestly can't remember cardboard in the construction. When I cut open the orange can, seeing the flimsy media and the cardboard upset me so much I still remember it.

The Motorcraft FL-1A was a VERY good filter. Too bad they stopped making them, I'd still use them in my old Ford.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ekpolk @ Aug 9 2006, 12:01 PM) [snapback]300224[/snapback]</div>

There is a report on the internet where this had already been done (although it was more than a few years ago). Someone cut apart all of the major oil filters and analyzed their construction. IIRC, he determined that all domestic oil filters were actually made by only three or four companies but were marketed under a host of different brand-names. One of the companies that got a less than stellar report set their legal department on the poor guy and I think the website was yanked for a while, then returned with additional pages where the guy drew his conclusions separately but made it clear they were only his opinions. Ironically, it wasn't Allied Signal, the maker of Fram oil filters that made him alter the website (I think it was Champion Labs, but I'm not positive).

The main problem with the cheapo Fram oil filters was not their flimsy element (which doesn't look so hot, either) but the fact that they use cardboard and glue on the end-caps to hold the element together during assembly. Evidently, the cardboard/glue could come apart during use and pieces of the glue/cardboard would then make their way into the engine crankcase and internal parts, contributing (or outright causing) engine failure.

Here's the website:

Engine Oil Filter Study

 

rudiger:

I've paid periodic visits to the guy's site for a long time. I'd heard bits and pieces of the "someone's after him" story too, but never paid too much attention (wish I had, actually). IIRC, this may be the comment that sparked the problem:

Apart from this, and some indication that the M1's fine filtration comes at the cost of adequate flow, I've never heard, or experienced, anything bad with the M1.

I've used some of this info as a starting point. As you might be able to tell, I still like doing this sort of thing for myself -- it's just plain fun seeing for yourself, and feeling with your own two hands (as long as you don't cut yourself ). At least for me anyway.

As to the element thing, I've come to believe that it's sort of a "yin and yang" thing between the element and its supporting end caps. The Fram filtration media is definitely flimsier than any of the different ones I've found in a CL product, even the inexpensive Valuecraft (AZ store brand). The thin cardboard endcaps exacerbate this weakness, IMO, since they are the support structure for the element. Also, unlike the thick, rock-hard black cement that holds a CL filter media into the metal end caps, the glue used in the Fram seems thin and weak. Thus, when inward pressure is applied on the media, as I did with my hand, the paper end caps do little to arrest the crushing and collapse. Notice how, in the picture, the paper endcap tore as I crushed it -- I did nothing else to start that tear. And keep in mind that once that glue/paper layer is breached, unfiltered oil is going straight into the engine. I do realize, of course, that hand pressure is only an estimation of what might happen were the filter subject to an O/P spike (or sustained overpressure). Also notice from the picture how the metal centertube failed. I would assess its crush resistance to be hardly better than that of a soda can.

I guess I'm piling on to poor Fram, but I have another problem with their product. The bypass valve is cheap too (keeping in mind that different sizes have different types, and a few have none at all, relying upon other components in the oil system for bypass safety). In the ones I've looked at, the bypass valve is linked to its spring with plastic "hooks" that look as if they came from an airplane model kit. You can snap them easily with finger pressure. In a CL filter, the parts are all metal, except of course for the valve sealing diaphram.

 

Although I too dislike the cheapness of the Fram filters, but as an engineer, I also know that with proper analysis, there are many legitimate means of cost reducing your products without compromising safety, etc..

I think Fram has gone a bit too far in most areas, but IMO, the bypass valve is one part that is just fine.. Yes, they could have used better quality materials, but the fact remains that the valve does work as intended and is very reliable. You can harp all you want about how it's cheap, its plastic and you can break pieces off, but you have to think about just how this part might fail in real life operation.. Those little plastic fingers basically just keep the plastic valve attached to the spring, they have no load bearing function and *in their intended function and intended operating environment*, have very few failure modes, and even lower occurences of failure.. In my view, this is a perfectly legitimate cost reduction. What you're doing by opening the thing up and sticking your fingers in there is changing both those parameters and of course, in such a case, you can introduce external failure modes, ie, you're trying to make the part do something it was never designed to do, and of course, in such a manner, you can cause it to fail, but again, for this particular part only, I think it's a case of people just trying to find more things that they can say are bad about the filter.. IMO, if Fram would simply rethink the way they put together the main filter element, they've have a perfectly fine oil filter if not as high a build and material quality as some of their competitors..

 

C4:

As odd as it may sound, I really don't disagree with you. I very well realize that there aren't any sinister fingers of death that can reach inside the filter while in operation to snap those little claws off. I guess I'm sort of coming at the issue from another direction. Fram can probably say, quite accurately, that this design will only fail one out of (pick some very large figure) so many uses (time, distance, however they choose to measure it). On the other hand, I can easily look down the centertube of a Bosch Premium, K&N, or M1 (all Champ Labs products), and see the obviously more robust construction. The BP can be had for about the same price as the basic Fram, and the other two for a couple bucks more. From the fact that we simply are not hearing stories of cars being killed by their Frams on a regular basis, I am willing to conclude that all the designs, Fram included, are probably perfectly OK for normal operations. But when you put the two valves (Fram and CL) side-by-side, it's easy to conclude that as you approach failure-inducing conditions, it's the Fram that's going to go first.

Of course, Allied Sig is free to make whatever business decisions it feels are appropriate to maximize their profits. I'm sure they are very well aware that there are a few guys like me who will dig further than most in checking out their product. They've chosen, for whatever reason, to make a product that, if nothing else, looks horrendously cheap in comparison to the direct competition. I, the customer, am just as free to decide I want a better built product for the money (late edit -- and that I don't appreciate being offered a "Yugo level" product for about the same money as a "Lexus"). Apparently Champion Labs believes that there are a bunch of people who feel the same way, since they're still making money building much more robust oil filters.

 

Regarding the ACEA standards, here is my understanding. If I'm off, please let me know. ACEA has the full details of the specification requirements online.

First off, the ACEA is a consortium of automobile producers in Europe, while the API is a consortium of petroleum companies in the USA. Who do you trust to set the specifications for the motor oil in your car?

ACEA B*: applies to diesel engines

ACEA A1: the basic ACEA specification for gasoline engines.
Any oil meeting A3 or A5 also meets this, even if not listed on the bottle.

ACEA A3: the common long-life specification
Adds requirements regarding the life of the oil as well as requiring higher HTHS (hi temp hi shear) for better protection.

ACEA A5: the fuel efficient long-life specification
Same as A3 EXCEPT the HTHS must be lower than the cutoff for A3. HTHS correlates highly with viscosity and friction.

No oil can meet A3 and A5. Any oil meeting either A3 or A5 also meets A1.

Castrol 0W-30 is unusual in that it's rare for an oil sold as 30 weight to have such high measured viscosity or the high HTHS required by A3. (Mobil1 0w-40 is another excellent oil available in the USA meeting ACEA A3.) The group III Castrol Syntec 5w-30 and 10w-30 oils have lower measured viscosity and HTHS and meet ACEA A5.

MB or Daimler Chrysler 229.5, BMW Longlife LL-01, and many VW specifications add further requirments above and beyond the ACEA requirements.

Can people in Europe and elsewhere tell us what oil and drain intervals Toyota calls for outside north america?

 

Theorist:

I think you got the ACEA thing down pretty well. One of the reasons I'm (or was) big on the German Castrol is that the engine in my previous car (Nissan/Infiniti VQ35) seemed to do particularly well on the heavier range of allowed oils (N/I specs 5w-30, 10w-30, and 10w-40 for it, even to this day). GC certainly does fall at the thick end of the 30wt range at over 12 cSt at 100*C. It also has a 3.6 HT/HS rating, hence the A3 rating too (but also lack of US fuel economy "starburst"). I tried some subjective, informal experimentation comparing it with more typical 10 cSt 30wt oil. Alas, no UOA on the 10 cSt stuff, but I can say that the engine sounded notably smoother on the GC than it did on the well reputed Havoline dino. While the VQ is a terrific engine, it is also noted for the quirk seen in some examples (mine included...) of having "timing chain rattle" on startup. My case wasn't really bad, so I wasn't about to let them tear into my engine to do the TSB-suggested fix. Also, there was some debate about the cause, with two sources being suspect, the O/P driven chain tensioner, and the VTC sprocket (VVT-i in Toyota-speak). Anyway, my TCR was also lessened on the thicker oil. And my UOAs were consistently fantastic.

Now moving on to Prius ownership, I find myself with a large excess stock of the green variety of GC (most of it made in 04, by the numbers on the bottom). Once I complete a couple short experiments to ensure that I really do have a clean engine (it's a 15k mile 04 that looks clean down the filler and was dealer serviced), I'll move on and try GC. Although we have one member who's had no mileage drop with this thicker oil, I'll be watching its performance very carefully, mileage and UOA. Of course, I'll report how it goes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(c4 @ Aug 10 2006, 09:57 AM) [snapback]300770[/snapback]</div>

The idea of maintaining (or even improving) the functional design of a product through proper analysis and engineering while, at the same time, lowering production and material costs is a sound one.

However, I think businesses (particularly American businesses), in general, are more inclined to pursue purely financial benefits through cost cutting with little regard for compromising safety. One of the best examples is the exploding Ford Pinto. When the case went to court, it was discovered that the Ford Corporation was well aware of the design defect which made the Pinto susceptable to an explosion when hit from behind, but had done a cost study analysis which determined that it would be more expensive to fix the defect than the forecasted legal costs from the relatives of those unfortunate enough to be killed or injured in a Pinto fire.

While Ford paid mightily for such short-sighted wisdom, three decades later, the same sort of mentality allowed Ford Explorers to be sold with Firestone tires prone to blow-outs at speed which, in turn, would cause a roll-over with accompanying serious injuries or death. Again, Ford was aware of the problem but consciously chose the savings of using cheap Firestone tires to offset any possible legal costs.

Allied Signal appears to have applied the same sort of logic with the construction of Fram oil filters. While it's probably true that the likelihood of a Fram oil filter failing and causing internal engine damage is minimal, anecdotal evidence suggests that the probability is higher than of other aftermarket filters. I suspect that Allied Signal, like Ford, has done a cost benefit analysis as to how much they can cheapen Fram oil filters to the point of accepting the occasional oil filter failure (and the accompanying legal costs) in exchange for a higher profit margin.

Personally, I'm not going to take the chance that I'm that one out of a million failure that Allied Signal is willing to accept.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Aug 10 2006, 07:53 PM) [snapback]301220[/snapback]</div>

Well put. And we all know how it will be for those few unfortunates who get stuck with the failures. AS will take the "who us?" tack, and make their customer fight them tooth and nail to get reimbursed (while at the same time crying about being subjected to "frivolous" lawsuits). Although I'm going to cut up a couple of their "higher line" filters this weekend, for fun, I really don't care what I find. I still don't trust 'em. I've read the tea leaves inside the OCOD, and realize what they say ("we don't care if a few of you lose the car that you prize, we're only concerned about our profits"). No thanks!