Interesting info on synthetic oil recommendation
From Joe Spitz at cars101:
"Synthetic oil - Subaru is now recommending using Subaru Synthetic 5W-30 oil for 2010 and prior turbo engines, and requiring it for all 2011 turbo engines. The oil change interval does not appear to have changed. This oil is also recommended for all non-turbo vehicles, except the new 2011 Forester 2.5L (non turbo) due later this year which will use a 0W-20 Subaru synthetic oil."
"Synthetic oil - Subaru is now recommending using Subaru Synthetic 5W-30 oil for 2010 and prior turbo engines, and requiring it for all 2011 turbo engines. The oil change interval does not appear to have changed. This oil is also recommended for all non-turbo vehicles, except the new 2011 Forester 2.5L (non turbo) due later this year which will use a 0W-20 Subaru synthetic oil."
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It is not readily available, requiring an oil change at a dealer. And it's likely to be more expensive than Mobil 1 or Pennzoil Platinum, so not many people will want to use it. But the recommendation to use synthetic is significant.
As little as a few months ago my brother was told by the dealership that he couldn't use synthetic because it wasn't approved by Subaru. I pointed out to him that my manual for my 10 Forester said it was "OK".
I have always used Mobil 1 in all my Soobs. I thought that the recommendation for 0W-20 in the new non-turbos was also significant. Maybe that is how they get the extra 1 MPG and not the engine redesign.
A significant number of owners will have their car serviced at the dealer at least through the warranty period.
But many people who change their own oil will buy various brands of synthetic oil from an auto store rather than Subaru oil from the dealer, as it is more convenient and cheaper.
And other people who don't have their oil changed at the dealer, will have it done by the quick change shops using whatever synthetic oil they sell.
I think the purpose of Subaru recommending synthetic oil was not to make a profit from selling Subaru oil, but to protect the engines better with any synthetic oil.
Hahaha, no, I caught this original point that you clarified in a previous post:
This is a recommendation to use synthetic oil, not a requirement to use Subaru's synthetic oil.
In the real world, do you Subaru owners adhere to 3,750 miles, or stretch it out to something a bit less 1960's? Do synthetic oil users have a recommended real world interval?
Thanks for any useful comments.
I will pull another sample at about six months (probably 6-7 thousand miles) to see how it is doing. In general, I plan to do annual oil changes, which will be about 15,000 miles. I use Amsoil Signature Series 0w-30.
I am conservative in my approach and recognize I am a bit fanatical about many things, but I do the first oil change at something less than 1000 miles to get out the initial shavings, core sand, etc. After about another 2.5K miles I change over to Mobil1 5WX30 and do oil changes about every 5K to 6K miles, but have gone as long as 7K.
As a retired engineer and also a former mechanic I believe that today's oil, both conventional and synthetic, have come a long way and are good for many more miles than what the factories recommend. I see 2 problems though. The first is the small filters which I believe are "done" way before the oil is. If they start to bypass because of filter loading then you are not filtering the oil, and don't know it. The second problem is that while the oil itself is still good at extended miles the additive package wears out.
All the additives are important but zinc helps protect against wear. Years ago oil had a lot of zinc but current formulations start out with much less, so as it gets depleted you don't have the best protection. So while I have considered doing 10K to 12K oil changes with the Mobil1 and just do a filter change at 5K or 6K, I generally don't roll the dice with things so I resort to my conservative self and just do the schedule I mentioned earlier.
I believe that Subaru still "allows" 7.5K oil changes under non-extreme use, even with conventional oil, and I would have to think that if you do 30K a year it has to be mostly highway and under ideal conditions. If so, I certainly wouldn't be doing 1/2 the "allowed", even being conservative and fanatical.
If it's a big concern, you're likely to be putting on highway miles, too, so you're exactly the type of person who would qualify.
The regime you mention is almost exactly what I used to do, except switching to synthetic at 1000 miles. I still used conventional oil at the 1000 mile change. You only get one shot at breaking an engine in so I want to wait until at least 2K to 3K to give the rings a fair shot at the friction they need before I go to a more slippery synthetic. I know that many manufacturers use synthetic from the get-go but I am still a bit old-school on this. I used to wait until at least 5K miles but now pay homage to the better manufacturing techniques, materials, and tolerances. My schedule used to be 150 miles, 1000 miles, 3000 miles, then the synthetic at 5K or 6k. Now I typically do 500 miles, then 2500 miles with synthetic, as long as there has been no noticeable oil consumption which is a key indicator for rings being seated, otherwise I will go another 3K with conventional.
Even with all the manufacturing positives now there is still a lot of junk generated during break-in, as well as still some crap left over from the manufacturing process. It is inevitable that filings and such be generated from the friction, and yes, they get caught in the filter... hopefully.
It stands to reason that most of that junk will be generated early on, where the most friction is, as well as the stuff that is "shipped" with the engine. I always want to get that stuff out early. I used to race muscle cars and built a lot of engines. Back in the day when engines had predominately iron components, I cut an oil filter apart after 150 miles on a brand new factory engine. It was loaded with crap. I ran a bar magnet through it and the magnet came out looking like a chia pet with lots of "hair". If it had that much stuff at 150 miles imagine what it would have looked like at 3K. As I said in my earlier post, if the filter gets clogged it will bypass and you won't know it, so you end up circulating oil with a bunch of undesirable debris in it... not good for the bearings and other parts.
I have softened as I have gotten older, but only a little. I now change out the first filter at about 500 to 600 miles, and might as well do the oil too even though it is still fine. Nowadays I try to be conservative but not as fanatical, but you certainly are doing no harm by changing at 100 to 200 miles. Your engine will never hate you for doing this, but not doing it can be deadly especially as it's life goes on. I never keep cars "forever" but treat them as if I were.
Manufacturers would never recommend or require such conservative treatment because they don't want to be perceived as selling something with a high cost of ownership, but if you talked to any engine guy he would applaud your approach. Manufacturer requirements are MINIMUM requirements, not best. Seeing is believing and my experience with the magnet taught me all I needed to know, and you will find that those who think you are nuts are really justifying how they do things and general things they read. I also never buy used cars.
Nicely said!
The engines of today are manufactured to clean standards. This Scion dealership had a lady bring her car in for the first oil change at 6,500 miles. The mechanic cut open the filter and posted the results:
http://scionlife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23558
I have a Scion with the same engine, and a Forester. I trust the Forester's engine is at least as cleanly made as the Scion's.
If one uses a sand casting (XT?) and the other does not I would not presume the same lack of manufacturing residue.
I typically run my fingers along the bottom of my oil drain pan, after the oil cools. I have found the oil to be much grittier at the first oil change than later on in life, and that includes all my Foresters. I am not talking about big chunks of anything, just some fine grit.
Besides, for about $20 I personally would not take the chance, and it makes me feel better based on my experiences.
1) the normally aspirated engine has an open deck design that is cast in a process that does not require sand to be shaken out of the completed casting.
2) The XT/WRX/STI have a semiclosed deck design that requires cleaning of the mold remnants.
I wonder which deck design is used in the new 2011 Forester?
They cannot be die cast, like the open deck decks of the SOHC NA engines, because the cast webs holding the cylinder tops prevent withdrawal of a die.
The sand-cast semi-closed decks do not place stress on the head gaskets, which is why this design is being used for the new NA engines.
You and the OP perhaps think that some sand remains in the sand-cast engines. And the OP may believe that all engines make metal shavings as they break in. These would be misconceptions.
All engines are thoroughly cleaned of casting and machining contaminants before assembly. And break-in only produces microscopically fine particles polished off the rings and cylinder walls, too small to be captured by filters. This material is captured and bonded to the detergent additives in the oil. And there is very little of it.
But where has Subaru revealed "semi-closed deck" for the 2011 NA Forester engine? We all would be pleased with that design and it was one of several reasons I bought a 2010 XT for my mainly slow city driving...as well as the better match of lower speed engine torque to the 4-speed auto trans.
Will the potential increase in manufacturing cost necessarily raise prices of all 4 cylinder models? If warranty costs have been high enough with the die cast blocks, an increase may not be necessary to maintain profit margins.
They have not. You must infer it. This says the turbo and the diesel use the DOHC semi-closed deck which saves the head gaskets:
"The BOXER DIESEL adopts a semi-closed cylinder block deck to improve the rigidity around the head gaskets, following the precedent of the semi-closed type used in the Subaru EJ20 turbocharged gasoline engine."
http://www.boxerdiesel.com/engineering/en/03.html
Then these say the 2011 NA engine is also DOHC:
"... for the 2011 Forester... Also of note is the switch from SOHC to DOHC..."
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2010/07/2011-subaru-forester-gets-new-base-en- - - gine-improved-fuel-economy.html
"... for 2011, the Subaru Forester gets a new volume engine... double overhead cams (vs. a single cam previously)..."
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2010/07/2011-subaru-forester-gets-new-base-en- - - gine-improved-fuel-economy.html
You have to assume that Subaru, in making the DOHC engine standard across the line, will use the same semi-closed deck for all of them. In a month, you can go see the new engine on the dealer lots.
The new engine has two significant improvements:
1. For all models, replaces the breakable timing belt that had to be changed every 100K, with a permanent timing chain.
2. For the NA models, it replaces the open deck SOHC engine with the semi-closed deck DOHC engine that has unlimited head gasket life.
You are using THE instead of A DOHC engine. I believe the XT engine was described as unchanged for 2011.
I hope you are correct that the semi-closed deck block is used in the NA engine.
On the decks, I suppose you could read the sources posted and come to the opposite conclusion - that for 2011 Subaru has designed a new open deck block for the DOHC motor, for use in the NA models only. In spite of what they said that they know about the effect of open decks on head gaskets.
That is the implication of the "unchanged" description. It would also mean no recertification cost for the XT right now, possibly a consideration. It also suggests to me that a next iteration of the XT engine might have the turbo below like the diesel. The mention of 2.0 liter to 2.5 liter displacements may also be a clue. I wonder what output a 2 liter turbo GASOLINE version of the diesel would have. I presume it would be tuned more for economy than the Japanese market turbos.
Some things are unchanged.
For the turbo, the engine has no changes requiring recertification. A change from belt to chain drive would not require recertification.
For the NA, the 2.5L has no changes to displacement or power.
But the NA does get DOHC and chain drive, for which it is called a new engine.
Not what I read:
1) more displacement
2) max torque at lower rpm
But the NA does get DOHC and chain drive, for which it is called a new engine."
"... Not what I read:
1) more displacement
2) max torque at lower rpm"
We are both reading the same article that says:
"... slightly larger displacement (2,498cc vs. 2,457cc)... horsepower remains at 170... Torque edges up from 170 at 4,400 rpm to 174 at 4,100 rpm..."
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2010/07/2011-subaru-forester-gets-a-new- -base-engine.html
But I did not consider that increases of 41 cc and 4 ft-lbs were significant enough to mention as design changes that would call it a new engine.
The NA engine is called new not because of those insignificant changes in displacement and torque, but because of the DOHC heads and the chain-driven cams.
And here's a photo now;
http://response.jp/imgs/zoom/249397.jpg
Less expensive industry standard plastic intake runners. One serpentine belt for all the pumps and accessories. Cam chains buried deep in front cover. Cam ends with their hydraulic and electronic controls protruding out the front.
I have done my Forester oil changes at 3,750 miles for 24,000 miles. The gusher of oil from the oversize plug, and the filter location, make it the hardest car I have ever had.
The socket only enables the filter to be loosened. If unscrewed with the socket, oil will go everywhere. After loosening the filter, it can be removed rather cleanly by careful use of a 12 oz. paper coffee cup. The technique would complicate this post.
The 2011 top mounted filter is contained in a cup. Oil from the removed filter drains back down into the engine.
I have never pre-filled a filter in 50 years. A nice touch but not called for by mfrs or done by dealers or oil change shops. Pre-filling is unnecessary because the residual oil in the pump, and the oil films in the engine, last for minutes, while the oil pump refills the new filter in seconds.
That should work pretty well, then. Do you know if this engine uses the same filter as previous? From the photo, it looks like it may be a shorter/wider unit and would hopefully include an anti-drainback valve.
The Saturn 2.2L Ecotech engine has had a top mounted filter for years, but I don't know it's details.
It's funny, I was just complaining to rsholland about how the filter was surrounded by hot exhaust on our 2009 model (that was not the case on my 1998 DOHC). Plus the dealer overtightened the filter and I could not get it off even with the oil filter socket wes recommends.
So I went out and got a huge adjustable wrench that bites down and reaches up in to that cavity and got it loose. Without that tool I could not have removed it.
GoodYear auto service overtightened the filter on my Sienna, also, so I think I'm done letting others change our oil. 2 bad experiences are enough.
Plastic intake runners should put less weight at the top of the engine. I was always fascinated at how solid the old metal ones were, but it was probably overkill.
http://www.benmeadows.com/images/xl/10L-Straight-Jaw-Pliers-BEN-_i_LBM42760Z.jpg-
I actually got it for my Sienna, to remove a canister-type oil filter that was overtightened. Every handy man should have one of these.
I literally would not have been able to remove them without this tool. I even had the engines out of the vehicles at the time!
On my Toyota, I gave up (prior to having that tool) and made the folks who overtightened it remove the filter for me. They had to drain the oil so they refilled it for free (I provided the filter element).
No other tool could remove it, but this one will.
My Toyota uses a filter cartridge, so the container (metal, pretty sturdy) is sturdy enough that it comes off without damage.
I should hope!
When Subaru changes the filter diameter 3 times during the course of owning one vehicle, you kinda get tired of buying new filter caps. Even the adjustable "caps" are too big for the tiny blue filters.
If it is on very tight, the end caps will often deform the thin metal of the filter and slip. Thankfully, the circumference of the stock Subaru filter was a little bigger than the replacement filters, so I had to tap my socket on with a hammer first. Tight or no, that thing was coming off!
I only use the socket for my Forester because it is not possible for me to get my hand around it. On all my other vehicles, I remove and install them by hand. I have to use the socket to install the filter on the Forester, too!
You missed the part where I mentioned I tried that. Did not work - could not get enough grip to twist, it would slip and strip the side of the filter (OE Subaru). The filter was overtightened, remember.
Funny thing is I actually tried TWO oil filter sockes. The first one was metal, from Advance Auto Parts, and the 2nd was a hard plastic one from NAPA. Both failed.
Hence the need for pliers, which clamped tight enough to twist it off.
I'm not really concerned about damage to the oil filter as it's done being used anyway.
I have large pliers, and have used them over the decades on a couple of other cars, but the Subaru filter is so tightly confined by heat shields that I cannot get my hand on it, much less get pliers around it.
Metal failed.
The NAPA plastic/composite one also failed.
There was just no way.
Like I said it was way overtightened.
The pliers stick out quite a bit, especially the large-sized ones. It reaches the filter easily. Took me an hour and a half struggling with the metal and plasic caps, and about 7 seconds with the pliers.
Anyway, the problem is that the caplike filter sockets that you buy at Advance or Napa, metal or plastic, are 67 mm and very slightly too large - so they slip just enough on an overtightened filter to round off the edges of the filter flats. Those aftermarket sockets would be fine if the filter was not on with excessive torque. The OEM subaru oil filter socket is 66.5 mm and a more precise fit - at least for the old style made in Japan black filters (which I bought out a dealer's supply of about 5 dozen when subaru changed to the blue Honeywells - which I will not use).
Now I find that my cap nut that fits the old black filters does not fit the new blue filters. The blue filters are slightly smaller in diameter, and I cannot find a cap nut small enough to fit them tightly. So I had to buy the gizmo with the clamping fingers.