04 honda pilot engine oil

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.

Here's one thing to think of. Apparently most 5W-20 oil uses high
levels of molybdenum antiwear compounds to reduce friction and to
prevent metal to metal contact. There's a question as to how quickly
the moly is depleted.

<http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000052004.cfm>

Fuel economy demands, in particular, are expected finally to propel
these oils more deeply into the marketplace. Ford Motor Co. research
cited by Igarashi indicates that 0W-20 engine oil can increase fuel
economy by up to 3 percent over 10W-30 (currently Japan's most popular
engine oil grade).

"However, in order to [make] 0W-20 engine oil, the base oil must be
Group III, or Group IV (polyalphaolefin)." Another driver will be the
use of organic molybdenum as a friction modifier. With molybdenum,
"you can gain friction reductions of up to 10 percent at low engine
speeds. However, a big drawback is the loss of effect over time; the
friction reduction is lost quickly due to additive depletion. By using
Group III or polyalphaolefin base oil, there is better retention of
the friction reducing properties," due to the oils' better oxidative
stability, Igarashi explained.

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.

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?

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:45:18 -0500, "Steve Bigelow"
<stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote:

>
>"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
>news:Xns96229672627CBtegger@207.14.113.17...
>> Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote in news:kYadnQ2AOaseBtzfRVn-gw@rcn.net:
>>
>>> 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, gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com (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?)

"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns96229672627CBtegger@207.14.113.17...
> Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote in news:kYadnQ2AOaseBtzfRVn-gw@rcn.net:
>
>> 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.

In article <1111640504.2c52f0d493c8ff3ae5e79fd1f173ccd5@teran ews>,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> 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".

Interestingly enough, the tire people know this. That's why you get
funky tread patterns. Not because they do anything, but because they
sell the tire.

Honda recomends 5w-20 weight oil for emission and fuel economy reasons.
5w-30 weight oil will probably will not cause any problems to the
engine. If the engine had a turbo I would be concerned. Check out
http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/ford5w20.htm

mdsimon80 wrote:
> Honda recomends 5w-20 weight oil for emission and fuel economy reasons.
> 5w-30 weight oil will probably will not cause any problems to the
> engine. If the engine had a turbo I would be concerned. Check out
> http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/ford5w20.htm
>
to paraphrase: "using another grade of oil doesn't invalidate your legal
rights. so let us sell you amsoil."

what a tech-free croc. i wouldn't buy amsoil on principle. /anyone/
attempting to distribute a product through an ariadne's web of hype like
that will never get my dollar.

Frank wrote:
> I don't know about you, but if the engineers who develop the
> engine say that their engine needs
> 5w-20, I would not take the chance with another grade. Also, more
> and more stores have 5w20 and
> its is only a few dollars more an oil change. So let me see.. 30k
> for the car... and I want to
> save a measly 5$ per oil change... don't think so.

Well - Honda didn't redesign many of their engines when they made the
official switch to 5W-20. Ford is back dating their recommendations
to use 5W-20. I doubt 5W-20 is some magic potion, but its use is
possibly a concious decision that fuel economy is more important than
ultimate engine longevity.

The cheapest 5W-20 oil I've seen is Coastal at an AutoZone. I wouldn't
use it, but it's a fully API certified oil with the donut, starbust,
etc.

For those who are really freaked out, Mobil 1 now comes in a 5W-20
version. I know it won't be an option for the original poster because
of the price, but it might work for those what are squeamish about
usingeven a semi-synthetic 5W-20. I'm supposing the biggest problem
would be excessive thinning out at high ambient temps, and the Mobil 1
will likely be better in that regard.

Some manufacturers that normally recommend 5W-30/10W-30 also say
that other (heavier) weights can be used with lots of towing and/or
in hot climates. Most engines are alleged to be fairly tolerant of
a wide range of oil viscosity. If I lived in (let's say) Texas, I'd
seriously consider using a 5W-30 (or even 10W-30) during the Summer.

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.

In article <051097b1ce768033d4f5dd93ed267ab9@localhost.talkab outautos.com>,
mike113 <michael_yu8@hotmail.com> 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.
>

There have been lots of discussions about Pilots and oil at
http://www.hondapilot.org/.


--
Mike Iglesias Email: iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine phone: 949-824-6926
Network & Academic Computing Services FAX: 949-824-2069

jim beam wrote:
> mdsimon80 wrote:
> > Honda recomends 5w-20 weight oil for emission and fuel economy
> > reasons. 5w-30 weight oil will probably will not cause any
> > problems to the engine. If the engine had a turbo I would be
> > concerned.
> > Check out http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/ford5w20.htm
> >
> to paraphrase: "using another grade of oil doesn't invalidate your
> legal rights. so let us sell you amsoil."

Redline fudges with many specs too, but they don't get much scorn for
it. They seem to be more realistic in their sales and advertising.

> what a tech-free croc. i wouldn't buy amsoil on principle. /anyone/
> attempting to distribute a product through an ariadne's web of hype
> like that will never get my dollar.

I don't care for Amsoil's sales practices, and I never intend to buy
any of their products. I don't believe they're garbage either, and
its use seems to be working well for people without an axe to grind
for or against them.

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.

y_p_w wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>mdsimon80 wrote:
>>
>>>Honda recomends 5w-20 weight oil for emission and fuel economy
>>>reasons. 5w-30 weight oil will probably will not cause any
>>>problems to the engine. If the engine had a turbo I would be
>>>concerned.
>>>Check out http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/ford5w20.htm
>>>
>>
>>to paraphrase: "using another grade of oil doesn't invalidate your
>>legal rights. so let us sell you amsoil."
>
>
> Redline fudges with many specs too, but they don't get much scorn for
> it. They seem to be more realistic in their sales and advertising.

can't say i've waded much farther than their 4-ball test. that is /so/
unrealistic for vehicle engine apps, it's not even funny. it makes no
account of changing chemical load, changing particle load, thermal
breakdown - it's just a joke.

>
>
>>what a tech-free croc. i wouldn't buy amsoil on principle. /anyone/
>>attempting to distribute a product through an ariadne's web of hype
>>like that will never get my dollar.
>
>
> I don't care for Amsoil's sales practices, and I never intend to buy
> any of their products. I don't believe they're garbage either, and
> its use seems to be working well for people without an axe to grind
> for or against them.
>
> 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.

On 22 Mar 2005 05:04:17 GMT, "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote:

>"mike113" <michael_yu8@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:051097b1ce768033d4f5dd93ed267ab9@localhost.t 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.

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.

you can put in vegetable oil if you want




"mike113" <michael_yu8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:051097b1ce768033d4f5dd93ed267ab9@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.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.
>

I don't know about you, but if the engineers who develop the
engine say that their engine needs
5w-20, I would not take the chance with another grade. Also, more
and more stores have 5w20 and
its is only a few dollars more an oil change. So let me see.. 30k
for the car... and I want to
save a measly 5$ per oil change... don't think so.

Cheers


"mike113" <michael_yu8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:051097b1ce768033d4f5dd93ed267ab9@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.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.
>

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> 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...d=482260&rfi=6

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