Oil for the 2017

this, but the thinner oil does not provide as much engine protection at full operating temperature.

0w20 is only beneficial for temperatures at or below -20c.

Again, neither of these is true.

Separation of metal parts is done with hydrodynamic pressure.

Start-up protection is provided *when enough oil flows to the parts* (which is achieved with low viscosity).
 
this, but the thinner oil does not provide as much engine protection at full operating temperature.

0w20 is only beneficial for temperatures at or below -20c.
Go back and read the article ColtX-5 posted, very informative.
 
Last edited:
this, but the thinner oil does not provide as much engine protection at full operating temperature.

0w20 is only beneficial for temperatures at or below -20c.
If the manufacturer has specified 0w-20 for the engine, then I don't see why a 0w-20 oil will not be good enough for your engine at operating temp. If you are racing your car, then sure, your engine operating temp will be higher and you will want thicker oil. If you are only daily driving your car, you can stick to what is recommended in the manual.

If your engine is specified for 0w-20 and you are using thicker oil, when you go start your engine you are increasing wear and tear on it because the thicker oil will not be able to lubricate the engine as easily as the thinner recommended 0w-20 oil.

Edit: The only real way of knowing for sure if your oil is a good match for your car is to have oil pressure and oil temp gauges and to monitor them in your daily driving.
 
My alternate oil is/was Pennzoil Platinum. It used to be plentiful at Walmart and at $23 for a 5 qt. jug it was quite a steal. Now they seem to be pushing Pennzoil 0w-20 synthetic blend, it's all over the place, PP is getting hard to find.

Pennzoil Platinum is my go to oil. It gets sold out quick in the Wal-Marts in my region now.

In regards to Moly. 1:There's old school Moly from like the 50's used in the OEM Mazda oil. Its good stuff yes. But there's also 2: Tri-nuclear moly which is the more advanced Moly. A smaller amount of Tri-nuclear moly is as effective as larger amounts of old school Moly.

That said: Pennzoil Platinum and Mobil1 0-weights use Tri-nuclear moly. I prefer PP as it has a better base stock and cleaners.

Quaker State zero-weight has tons of old school Moly making it a good alternative to Mazda OEM oil w/Moly.
 
which one of those oils is the expensive one?

Aren't they all high quality synthetics which also happen to be cheap?
Depends on where you buy them. Amsoil is generally more expensive than others and Royal Purple ain't cheap either (just checked on Walmart's website). All are more expensive than the oil you can get at the dealership. I for one am using Pennzoil Platinum for my Speed3 because of good oil analysis results from other owners, but for the CX-5, I'm using whatever the dealership has available for it.
 
https://thegarage.jalopnik.com/why-expensive-oil-is-a-waste-of-money-1797241527

I guess the takeaway from that article is you can use cheap oil as long it meets the certifications required for your car. The more important thing is regular oil changes regardless of what kind of oil you use.
As pointed out in one of the comments in the article, it would be more convincing if the top mileage was higher than the 4519 miles posted. What's the point of a 4000 mile drain interval with synthetic oil? I would think wear would always be minimal at that OCI.
 
As pointed out in one of the comments in the article, it would be more convincing if the top mileage was higher than the 4519 miles posted. What's the point of a 4000 mile drain interval with synthetic oil? I would think wear would always be minimal at that OCI.
I agree. It would have been nice if there was data on longer oil change intervals. The study tried to compensate for this by providing wear data per 1000 miles. The first engine mentioned in the study, the EJ 2.5 which I assume is the WRX STi engine, is a high performance engine, so I'm not surprised that the oil change intervals are relatively short. Still would have been nice to see data for longer oil change intervals on economy car engines, but it is what it is.

Changing oil at 4000 miles isn't exactly unheard of. People with high performance turbocharged engines usually change their oil at 3-4k miles. A lot of Mazdaspeed owners change their oil religiously at 3k miles. I'm probably the only one that regularly do oil changes at 5k miles. My 2013 Speed3 is up to 71k miles now and so far it's been working fine for me.
 
Your friend is talking about Moly disulfide, that's not what gets added to the oil.
AFAIK Moly Disulfide is not soluble in oil and it'll settle to the bottom of the container and shouldn't be added to oil.

The high moly oils that all major Japanese car-makers use as OEM oil (Subaru, Honda, Toyota, Mazda) all have
Molybdenum DialkyldiThioCarbamate (MoDTC)

In other words, your buddy is an idiot.
 
I agree. It would have been nice if there was data on longer oil change intervals. The study tried to compensate for this by providing wear data per 1000 miles. The first engine mentioned in the study, the EJ 2.5 which I assume is the WRX STi engine, is a high performance engine, so I'm not surprised that the oil change intervals are relatively short. Still would have been nice to see data for longer oil change intervals on economy car engines, but it is what it is.

Changing oil at 4000 miles isn't exactly unheard of. People with high performance turbocharged engines usually change their oil at 3-4k miles. A lot of Mazdaspeed owners change their oil religiously at 3k miles. I'm probably the only one that regularly do oil changes at 5k miles. My 2013 Speed3 is up to 71k miles now and so far it's been working fine for me.

Yep. Change the oil and spark plugs in my Evo at no more than 3500 miles.
 
Messaged a buddy of mine. Makes a lot of sense. I know I REFUSE to use moly in a gun oil.

Hardly any difference between the Castro Syntec and Mobil 1, but the Mazda has way too much MoS2 (moly disulfide) which will break down under heat and pressure and become Mo2S3 (moly trisulfide) which is abrasive and causes abrasive wear. I hate Molybdenum in oils. It was originally designed as a dry film lubricant but like graphite, some "know it all" genius (NOT) decided it would be a good addition to oils. That's such a huge falsity but sells donuts, if you know what I mean bro.
Go with Castrol Syntec as I have recommended it for years but one step up is Amsoil. It doesn't get any better than that. The synthetic base oil is more highly stable at high temps and the additive packages are superior. No EP but still the best for the performance and longevity!
Take care Jon and always good to hear from you brother. ������

Guy works in the lubricant industry and fills government contracts, etc. Knows his way around addpacks.

Your friend sounded like he knew what he was talking about till his comment on Scamsoil

I'm not sure what the moly content of gun oil has to do with anything though. That's apples and oranges.
 
AMSoil is still better then mobil 1 garbage. castrol is not that good either.

the best is liqui moly or motul.
 
AMSoil is still better then mobil 1 garbage. castrol is not that good either.

the best is liqui moly or motul.

Just curious - why do you write Mobil 1 (AFE) and Castrol oils are garbage?

I was under the impression that these two oils fall in the category of the top five synthetic oils to use.
 
Just curious - why do you write Mobil 1 (AFE) and Castrol oils are garbage?

I was under the impression that these two oils fall in the category of the top five synthetic oils to use.

They are both top quality oils. Take no notice of the puerile comments.
 
Just curious - why do you write Mobil 1 (AFE) and Castrol oils are garbage?

I was under the impression that these two oils fall in the category of the top five synthetic oils to use.

He might be referring to the link that ColtCX-5 provided? tho Castrol doesn't look too bad compared to the Mobil 1 AFE.

attachment.php


Oil.jpg
 
My '17 took just less than 5.5 quarts to get to the top of the fill line. But I let it drain about 3 hours on the ramps while I was doing other things.
 
My '17 took just less than 5.5 quarts to get to the top of the fill line. But I let it drain about 3 hours on the ramps while I was doing other things.
Ever wondered why the spec on oil capacity says 4.8 quarts with filter replacement? (uhm)
 
Ever wondered why the spec on oil capacity says 4.8 quarts with filter replacement? (uhm)

True, but:


Engine oil capacity [SKYACTIV-G 2.5] (approx. quantity)
Oil replacement: 4.3 L {4.5 US qt, 3.8 lmp qt}
Oil and oil filter replacement: 4.5 L {4.8 US qt, 4.0 lmp qt}
Total (dry engine, without oil cooler): 5.4 L {5.7 US qt, 4.8 Imp qt}
Total (dry engine, with oil cooler): 5.5 L {5.8 US qt, 4.8 Imp qt}

Guess next oil change I'll pull the drain pan after about 5 minutes, and then measure how much drips out over a few hours. Guessing it will be about 1/2 quart or more. Could be the tilt of the ramps with the plug aiming toward the rear allowing more oil to drain out as well.
 
True, but:


Engine oil capacity [SKYACTIV-G 2.5] (approx. quantity)
Oil replacement: 4.3 L {4.5 US qt, 3.8 lmp qt}
Oil and oil filter replacement: 4.5 L {4.8 US qt, 4.0 lmp qt}
Total (dry engine, without oil cooler): 5.4 L {5.7 US qt, 4.8 Imp qt}
Total (dry engine, with oil cooler): 5.5 L {5.8 US qt, 4.8 Imp qt}

Guess next oil change I'll pull the drain pan after about 5 minutes, and then measure how much drips out over a few hours. Guessing it will be about 1/2 quart or more. Could be the tilt of the ramps with the plug aiming toward the rear allowing more oil to drain out as well.

where did you get those numbers?
The 2017 manual here https://www.mazdausa.com/siteassets/pdf/manuals-and-guides/2017/cx-5/2017-cx-5-owners-manual.pdf
lists 4.8 US Qt for oil+filter replacement for the 2.5

EDIT: nevermind.. I see what you did but I think you are mistaken in thinking that draining the engine for 3 hours somehow results in more than 4.8 US qt. coming out.
 
Back