[dgipalo]

I promised that I would get back to this thread with what my local shop owner had to say about grease fittings. Here's what he just told me: His experience has shown him that joints without fittings wear out faster because they cannot be lubed. He always put grease fittings on cars that did not come with them from the factory. Unfortunately, Honda (and most other companies now) do not have any provision for putting fittings on them so there is nothing you can do about it. He thinks that sucks. For a long time when "permanently sealed" joints came on cars, they either had a plug that could simply be taken out and replaced with fittings (I found those on one of my cars), or a dimple that could be drilled and tapped.

In short, with the Honda and most new cars, there is nothing you can do about it but it is not as good of a setup as fitting that can be greased. He said that he gets more business replacing joints now that they can't be lubed on many cars. But he said that he always recommends that fittings be installed on any car that has "permanently sealed" joints if it is possible. It's simply better to lube joints as standard maintenance if you can.

Lubed for life ends up being a prophetic description - the component lasts as long as the original grease remains able to provide lubrication. For the few Pilot-eers that go stream fording and other deep water exercises, early component replacement will be in the cards. The good thing about components with grease fittings is that you can 'change' the grease that's been contaminated by water immersion by forcing fresh grease through the component.

All that said, I've seen suspension components on my old Accords (86 hatch, sold at 110K miles, 92 Accord, sold at 95K) life long and trouble-free lives without the bother of grease fittings; both went well beyond 150K miles (kept in touch with the buyers) before any suspension components needed replacements. Neither car ever got taken 'wading' in deep water... I also had an 84 Suburban that needed tie rods and ball joints at 60K, despite being diligently greased at every oil change, and not being taken wading, either.

The CV joints, on the other hand, packed it up on the 86 at around 35K miles, with no boot joint damage noted. The 92 lived well beyond 100K, with only moderate noise at high angle turns.

Guess my point is that a properly engineered part, that is not abused by a 'dunking', can have a quite reasonable life without having the fuss and bother of regular grease application, and may live longer than the marginally engineered part that's meticulously maintained.

 

[pjb3]

I'm an olde fart too - and I was convinced that the reason for the 5-20 oil was based on the mileage thing too... until I heard some very good arguments that it is actually due to the much tighter engine tolerances found in modern Honda (and other) engines. Too thick of oil is just as bad as over greasing bearings - they will over heat due to the added friction.

Just my .02

Perhaps next time - when I'm more awake, we can talk about zerk fittings........

I doubt the 5w-20 oil is based on tighter engine tolerances, the same engine was used in the MDX with 5w-30 oil before the Pilot.

 

[N_Jay]

I doubt the 5w-20 oil is based on tighter engine tolerances, the same engine was used in the MDX with 5w-30 oil before the Pilot.

The same engine design does not mean that they did not make production improvements.

A lot of different Honda/Acura vehicles have "The Same" engine as the 2003 Pilot but missed the water pump recall, for example.

Another posibility is that it has taken some amount of time for Honda to collect sufficiant data to be confident that 5W20 is not going to cause other issues.

 

[pjb3]

The same engine design does not mean that they did not make production improvements.

A lot of different Honda/Acura vehicles have "The Same" engine as the 2003 Pilot but missed the water pump recall, for example.

Another posibility is that it has taken some amount of time for Honda to collect sufficiant data to be confident that 5W20 is not going to cause other issues.

You really didn't address my comment. It's uncommon for the clearances or tolerances to change. If Honda did change the clearances thereby requiring different oil I would be interested in hearing about it. My original statement still stands, if you can provide me with evidence that internal clearances changed I will be glad to change my opinion.
I agree with your last paragraph but that does not mean that the Pilot requires 5w-20 instead of 5w-30 or that 5w-20 provides superior protection.

 

[guitarman]

I thought I read on one of these forums that someone tried 5w30 and their Pilot seemed sluggish. They went back to 5w20 and all was well. Anecdotal evidence at best, but take it for what it's worth.

 

[jay]

I thought I read on one of these forums that someone tried 5w30 and their Pilot seemed sluggish. They went back to 5w20 and all was well. Anecdotal evidence at best, but take it for what it's worth.

As I recall, that was reported by timchen.

 

[N_Jay]

You really didn't address my comment. It's uncommon for the clearances or tolerances to change. If Honda did change the clearances thereby requiring different oil I would be interested in hearing about it. My original statement still stands, if you can provide me with evidence that internal clearances changed I will be glad to change my opinion.
I agree with your last paragraph but that does not mean that the Pilot requires 5w-20 instead of 5w-30 or that 5w-20 provides superior protection.

I think I did, but I could be wrong.

You said
"I doubt the 5w-20 oil is based on tighter engine tolerances, the same engine was used in the MDX with 5w-30 oil before the Pilot. "

Statement - I doubt the 5w-20 oil is based on tighter engine tolerances

Rational - the same engine was used in the MDX with 5w-30 oil before the Pilot


I said:
"The same engine design does not mean that they did not make production improvements"

Directly addressing your rational.

"A lot of different Honda/Acura vehicles have "The Same" engine as the 2003 Pilot but missed the water pump recall, for example."

An example of my statement.

"Another possibility is that it has taken some amount of time for Honda to collect sufficient data to be confident that 5W20 is not going to cause other issues."

I possible alternative reason for the 2002 MDX to call for a different oil than the 2003 Pilot.

I guess what you are looking for is someone from inside Honda to provide the definitive answer.

My experience here is that rarely if ever happens.
I guess we could compare the specification in the service manual, but those are rebuild specs not production specs.

I know from previous experience in a manufacturing environment, that production specifications are often changed with and without product specification changes.

 

[pjb3]

I thought I read on one of these forums that someone tried 5w30 and their Pilot seemed sluggish. They went back to 5w20 and all was well. Anecdotal evidence at best, but take it for what it's worth.

I have used both 5w-20 from the dealer and one oil change of
Mobil 1 5w-30 when the dealer did not have an opening for an oil change and there was no difference. Others have used Mobil 1 5w-30 with no reported problems.
I'm not trying to tell anyone which oil to use or which is better. This is a subject that has been beaten to death and for those that are interested there are other boards with far more knowledgable people to discuss it.

 

[pjb3]

N_Jay,

I was taking exception to the process where someone guesses that Honda made a change for whatever reason and this takes on a life of its' own and becomes fact. Production changes are common in some areas more than others. While some items such as pulleys, water pumps, etc. change frequently the clearances seldom do. But you are right, only the company knows for sure.

As an engineer you are well aware of manufacturing tolerances. I would think that any company that were to mass produce an engine that required a 5w-20 but not a 5w-30 would face incredible problems. Between the tolerances that occur between individual engines as well as the difference in oil from various manufactures and types (dino vs syn) as well as the change in viscosity over the oil's life, it just seems like any engine that sensitive to oil would have problems in the real world.

 

[N_Jay]

N_Jay,

I was taking exception to the process where someone guesses that Honda made a change for whatever reason and this takes on a life of its' own and becomes fact.

Well put!

I was taking exception to the process where someone guesses that Honda made a change for NO reason, or someone guesses that Honda made NO change and THIS takes on a life of its' own and becomes fact.

I don't know if 5W20 is BETTER than 5W30 for our engines, but I take Honda's word that 5W20 is just fine, and am fairly confident that no one here has relaiable information saying 5W30 is BETTER.

 

[colorider]

I doubt the 5w-20 oil is based on tighter engine tolerances, the same engine was used in the MDX with 5w-30 oil before the Pilot.

You and N-Jay have hashed this out, but here is the original blurp that made me think more about the 5w-20 vs 5w-30 debate:

"However, there is one overriding reason to stick with a 5W-20 if your car is rated for it -- hydrostatic friction.

In newer Honda's and Fords, machining tolerances are so close that heavier oil can't get out of the way of itself fast enough. This leads to unnecessary component heating and wear, especially in bearings. The wear dynamics are exactly the same as what happens to an over-greased wheel bearing -- there's nowhere for the excess grease to flow, and the bearing gets hot. The faster the wheel turns, the hotter the bearing becomes.

While you wouldn't think that there's that much difference between a 5W-20 and a 5W-30, there is, particularly at opting temperature. Viscosities play a much more important role than most folks realize, and those running 30 weight in their 20 weight cars are not doing themselves any favor. They'd be much better off just changing their oil more often than trying to offset wear with a "heavier" lubricant."

This makes sense to me - at least enough to convince me to run the 5w-20 per Honda's recommendations. I have in the past ran 5w-30 and noted no discernible difference in mileage or APPARENT operating temperatures. But, I doubt anyone would notice the difference without sophisticated measurements systems to monitor the engine.

All IMHO

YMMV

 

[pjb3]

"However, there is one overriding reason to stick with a 5W-20 if your car is rated for it -- hydrostatic friction.

In newer Honda's and Fords, machining tolerances are so close that heavier oil can't get out of the way of itself fast enough. This leads to unnecessary component heating and wear, especially in bearings. The wear dynamics are exactly the same as what happens to an over-greased wheel bearing -- there's nowhere for the excess grease to flow, and the bearing gets hot. The faster the wheel turns, the hotter the bearing becomes.

While you wouldn't think that there's that much difference between a 5W-20 and a 5W-30, there is, particularly at opting temperature. Viscosities play a much more important role than most folks realize, and those running 30 weight in their 20 weight cars are not doing themselves any favor. They'd be much better off just changing their oil more often than trying to offset wear with a "heavier" lubricant."

Some of what he has said would be true for a 50 or 60 weight oil but there is not a great difference between 20 and 30 weight at operating temperature. The other question is are Ford and Honda truely designed for 20 weight? As I mentioned earlier, I find it hard to believe they would design a production engine with clearances that are so tight that a 20 weight oil is mandatory.

I see two possible cases:
1. Honda has an engine that has been used in the Ody and MDX with 5w-30 oil. They now use it in the Pilot. For whatever reason they decide to change the clearences and the engine now requires a thinner oil that at the time this recommendation began was not widely available, even dealers were reported using 5w-30 in the early period.

2. Honda, after doing extensive testing with a new thinner oil finds that they get slightly better mileage with no increase in wear.

Believe whatever you like, I choose the simpler case.

 

[Birdman]

I added grease fittings to a Nissan Pathfinder I used to own and greased the chassis every oil change. I drove it off road a lot. The tie rod ends, etc. had little plugs that could be removed to install regular grease fittings. I don't see those on the Pilot, which would mean drilling and tapping the joints. Something I sure wouldn't do myself! Also, different greases use different bases and they are not always compatible. Mixing grease bases can cause a mess. My take on this is that unless you have a compelling reason (frequent off-road use, etc.) and a really, really good mechanic, it's just not worth adding grease fittings.