What I want to know is what are the performance differences between this new GF6 0w-20 and the now discontinued GF5 0w-20 High Moly oil
2013~2016 Timing Chain Failures?
- Thread starter cx5buddy
- Start date
- :
- 2018 CX-5 Sport
The new label on the bottles.
1
181962
The claim of up to 24% improved fuel economy is highly suspect and calls into question the other claims. The idea that a 20 MPG city could jump to 25 MPG or a 30 MPG highway jump to 37 is beyond implausible running the new standard.
For example, consider the 2020 vs. 2021 CX-5 normally aspirated 2.5L AWD set-ups. The 24/26/30 MPG rating in unchanged as well as no change in the turbo AWD 22/27/24. If there was a mileage improvement from the new standard you would expect to see it reflected in these numbers.
Mobil and Penzoil, for example, have only one notable thing to say about the new standard:
The impetus behind the new standard is reduction in LSPI in turbos that have been proliferating as manufacturers seek to improve fuel economy in high production volume vehicles with small block turbos.
Perhaps some of these claims are supported in a turbo with a pre-existing LSPI issue that the new standard remedies. I question whether this new standard would make any meaningful difference in a normally aspirated engine in the real world.
Last edited by a moderator:
- :
- Pueblo county CO
- :
- CX-5 Sport 16.5 6M
Yeah 24%. Almost as good as pills that turn water into gasoline.
Most likely something to do with the wording... 24% better than exactly what?
I think the "what" is a car suffering from severe Low Speed Pre Ignition, or compared to an engine that is designed and run at parameters that aren't prone to LSPI. "Up to" means "At Most", not "Generally".
The claims lack context and can be misleading. They aren't saying it will make a drastic fuel economy improvement just by replacing the oil with this in a car that is running as designed.
1
181962
That was my conjecture, Idemitsu benchmarking "up to" against a poorly performing turbo engine suffering from LSPI. That's evidently not the case, however. The poster who put up those test claims was in error. Idemitsu is not claiming these improvement over GF-5. They are claiming those improvements over the GF-6 standard in their formulation!
GF-6 Standards | Idemitsu Lubricants
www.idemitsulubricants.com
They reiterate what other other manufacturers say: the impetus is to reduce turbo LSPI. They state the GF-6 standard has other requirements not related to LSPI but I'm not seeing anybody else making such claims to such a degree. Reduced engine wear, improved engine cleanliness and fuel economy are cited by others in vague terms, but it remains unclear to me whether the advantages are turbo-specific.
Absent some independent testing I would be indifferent as to GF-5 or GF-6 in my normally aspirated engine. GF-5 will probably be phased out pretty soon anyway. Turbo? Might as well go with the GF-6 but which brand might be better than another would require that independent testing.
Last edited by a moderator:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yes, you’re right. Idemitsu is claiming those improvements over the GF-6 standard (not the GF-5) in their formulation which is even more impressive!⋯ The poster who put up those test claims was in error. Idemitsu is not claiming these improvement over GF-5. They are claiming those improvements over the GF-6 standard in their formulation!
GF-6 Standards | Idemitsu Lubricants
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Ask Idemitsu to show you the proof ⋯
Or accuse them false advertisement!
I have asked Idemitsu for various data over the years. They don’t want to share it. I have obtained enough info from or about their products to know their marketing is no more truthful than anyone else’s. I don’t care nearly enough to accuse them of anything. I do hope to help even just 1 person here recognize the difference between marketing and data. You may not be that person.
1
181962
Nobody is going to tell you what special sauce they put in their proprietary formulation. But they should support their claims by describing their testing procedure.
So, what did Idemitsu actually do in producing those outsized results against the "SF-6 standard"? What SF-6 standard oil were they comparing to? How did they perform the test? Or is this just a theoretical projection?
Any self-tested or theoretical claim or self-regulated anything should be viewed with some skepticism. For example, somewhere in these pages I compared some manufacturer treadwear ratings (which are self-produced and unregulated in any meaningful way) to Consumer Reports projected treadwear life based on 15,000 mile tests. In some cases manufacturer claims were wildly overstated; in some cases the ratings were conservative and understated.
- :
- Denver, CO
Yeah the CX-7 was a piece of crap from the old Ford days. So many stories about the turbo failing.
I have yet to see anyone mention timing chain failures with their CX-5's.
- :
- 2014 CX-5 Sport
I wonder what "japanese OEM technology" is. It's listed on the label
Last edited:
Probably just marketing fluff, just like back in the day any German made product had "German Engineering" somewhere on the package as a wow/marketing factor. I even have a pencil eraser from years ago made in Germany that boasted, "German Engineering" on the package....for a friggin' rubber pencil eraser, lol.
On another note, seems like this thread is going off topic. Going back on topic, yeah the 2.3 liter disi from the cx-7 is way different in design from the 2.5 liter turbo. I've written a handful of long posts explaining this which I don't want to get into again, but the 2.3 liter is a different beast, even from the original 2.0, which Mazda corrected(speaking of the 2.3 liter, by releasing a 2.5 liter, which is a scaled up version of the 2.0...)... then after that Mazda went on to the sky activ platform.
The 2.0 and 2.5 sky activ are quite different from the old MZR 2.0 and 2.5 liter(also known as the Ford Duratec 2.0 and 2.5 Liter, which Mazda developed derived and known as Mazda L-series inline 4. ... while being under Ford.), ... the old MZR 2.0 and 2.5 were great engines...the MZR 2.3 liter was a fluke in ways though(Mazda developed L-series engine...though Mazda was under Ford at the time and so Ford most likely owns the license and IP for it), but old tech, and I don't think Mazda was allowed to carry them over when Ford split/sold off their stakes in Mazda. I worked for Mazda during the transition time and spoke with a someone from the skyactiv marketing team, as I'm recalling and also speculating the reason for the skyactiv overhaul-rebranding, of course they had to improve/progress engine tech, but also speculating Mazda also had to make enough changes to not license the previous motor they developed while being under Ford...hence the numerous needed changes(di, 4-2-1 manifold, high compression newly designed volcano top pistons, etc. etc.). It seems the skyactiv engine is decent though not impervious to carbon build up... though the skyactiv turbo 2.5 liter is yet to be determined for it's long term reliability/durability as we've seen a handful of cracked engines pop up over time.
Last edited:
I wonder that myself after I found code P2090 and my average MPG has dropped from 22.1 to 17.7 MPG recently. Of course, while googling online, I also found the same youtube video about the timing chain going to failed and how weak they were made, etc.
Since I have a bad VVT selenoid gasket seal, so I ordered a new seal and the valve cover gasket. I will check the timing chain tension and maybe I can get my camera down in there to take a look at the tensioners and such. Honestly, I think the timing chain is fine since I don't hear anything rattling and it has been well maintained.
Jay
Since I have a bad VVT selenoid gasket seal, so I ordered a new seal and the valve cover gasket. I will check the timing chain tension and maybe I can get my camera down in there to take a look at the tensioners and such. Honestly, I think the timing chain is fine since I don't hear anything rattling and it has been well maintained.
Jay
