Although I’d already tested and verified this, but thanks to dunhillmc who verified my point again stated earlier in this thread at post #3:
“You may be thinking that when you measure the engine oil hot, the level should be higher due to the thermal expansion. But if you wait for the oil been drained back to the oil pan over-night, you also get more oil to raise the level. These 2 factors basically cancel out each other and the oil level measured in hot and cold conditions would be very similar.“
And if you measure the oil level in cold, you only need one pull to see the clear oil mark on dipstick for the watery 0W-20 oil, no wipe and re-insert the dipstick necessary!
For one, the 2.5T (which is the engine being discussed) uses 5W-30 oil. Second, if you have trouble reading the dipstick, you just need better lighting.
IMO, your justifications for reading the oil level this way are miniscule at best. If your method works for you and your engine, great. But you need to understand that it may not work for others (especially when you have a 2.5NA and the conversation is regarding the 2.5T).
Keep in mind that by insisting that reading the oil level while hot and reading it after the car has been sitting overnight is the same, you are undermining Mazda and the procedures their engineers have outlined. You'd need to make a pretty convincing case for me to take your word over theirs.
Everyone is free to make their own decisions and do whatever they want, as long as they understand the potential consequences of those decisions.
Yeah but you conveniently deleted the wording “at least” from the manual.
Says in Mazda owner’s manual:
“Turn it off and wait at least 5 minutes for the oil to return to the oil pan.“
1. I wasn't quoting the manual
2.
at least
Synonyms:
at the minimum, at the very least, not less than
What is the point you're making here? Are you trying to say that "at least 5 mins" is the same as 5 hours?
Just because people expressed their opinion differently and couldn’t reach an agreement and we want to lock this thread up?
At least this thread generated many posts and more traffic which is good to the website. I haven’t seen this kind of heat discussion in this community for a long time!
I agree that there is nothing wrong with some healthy discussion. Those not interested in the discussion are not being forced to participate in it.
With that said, not all "heated" discussions are productive, so if/when the conversation reaches that point, moderators will act accordingly.
Most people use 5 quarts instead of Mazda specified 4.8 quarts (even said this in Mazda Factory Workshop Manual) for oil change on 2.5L. This already means they don’t trust Mazda’s specs and use whatever the amount they feel comfortable.
People defending the Mazda say the fluid capacity specified is approximate. But based on my experience all vehicle I’ve owned the engine oil capacity has always been the amount to the FULL mark of the dipstick. From specified 4.8 quarts to 5.3 quarts in real-life to the FULL mark on engine oil capacity is 10.4% difference. But from specified 0.48 quarts to 0.8 quarts real-life on rear differential gear oil that’s 66.6% difference, and exact 0.48 quarts between specified value and real-life on front transfer case. I simply can‘t agree on specs which are approximate but show too many inconsistencies. A common mistake caused by these inaccurate fluid capacities is people bought 1 quart of SG1 gear oil for both front transfer case and real differential lubricant changes, and ended up they need somehow find a way to get another quart!
Using .2 quarts more than what Mazda specifies automatically means that that person doesn't trust Mazda's specs?
Your experience may be different from others.
Mazda is not the same company as Honda or Toyota.