0W-16 is here!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: SR5
... Speaking of monogrades, as suggested before, how close would these new 0W16 oils be to a VII free monograde ? If they are, then they definitely have my attention.
Related question: Would they necessarily be any closer to VII-free than an otherwise comparable quality synthetic 5W-20 or 10W-30?
 
The 2 trucks I had and have have a total of 20 years and over 400K miles never saw a 5/20 or 0/20.
No way I would try a 0/16.
You will have to pry my 10/30 out my cold oily hands.
 
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: SR5
... Speaking of monogrades, as suggested before, how close would these new 0W16 oils be to a VII free monograde ? If they are, then they definitely have my attention.
Related question: Would they necessarily be any closer to VII-free than an otherwise comparable quality synthetic 5W-20 or 10W-30?


I got my information form a informal conversation with the Penrite Rep while he was doing the rounds at my local auto parts store. Had quite the conversation once he realised I wasn't asking the same old 'why are their so many oils today?' typical questions.



Remember that in order to qualify as a '0W' oil all the oil must do is pass the tests as defined in the above chart. Synthetic G-III, GTL and PAO monograde 16W (weight) oils often pass or at least come very close to passing this for a 0W, and will 100% of the time pass a 5W rating. Thus there is no need to add ppd's to make the oil thinner at start-up (they're thin enough already to pass a 0W test) and no VII's are needed to keep the oil from 'thinning out' too much when at 100°C as it's a mono grade with the desired properties already. Especially considering the accuracy/molecule consistency at which GTL and PAO stocks.

regards
Jordan
 
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: SR5
... Speaking of monogrades, as suggested before, how close would these new 0W16 oils be to a VII free monograde ? If they are, then they definitely have my attention.
Related question: Would they necessarily be any closer to VII-free than an otherwise comparable quality synthetic 5W-20 or 10W-30?


Here's the Ravenol brew...
http://www.ravenol.de/uploads/tx_ravenol/pdf-print/RAVENOL_Extra_Fuel_Economy_EFE_SAE_0W16_1.pdf
Gives a Harman Index of 1 (well so close it don't matter)

M1 5W20..
https://www.mobil.com/english-us/passenger-vehicle-lube/pds/glxxmobil-1-5w20
Gives a Harman Index of 0.94...so has some VII influence...

M1 10W30..
https://www.mobil.com/english-us/passenger-vehicle-lube/pds/glxxmobil-1-10w30
Comes in at 0.93/0.94 again...

Assuming that the Penrite and Nulon offerings have an HTHS of 2.4 (grade minimum), they again hit the 1.0 mark or thereabouts.

So it APPEARS with the use of KV/High Shear that they are being made without VIIs...
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
Café became law in 1975, but was not introduced until 1978. Pickups later. M1 5-20 was introduced in 1974 in the US. You say 2.9, but 10-40 Valvoline I used was very thick in the cold temps of Maine, and created very loud valve clatter and hard starting in sub zero starts, but M1 5-20, which was much thinner gave quick and very quite starts in my OHV Chevy of that day.

You can't discern anything about HTHS during Maine ambient temperatures or starting a vehicle. That's the reason HTHS was added into SAE J300, and then subsequently tightened further. SAE grading mostly based upon KV is limited.


I agree. HTHS doesn't mean anything to me. But results do. That's why I use the oil I do.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
Café became law in 1975, but was not introduced until 1978. Pickups later. M1 5-20 was introduced in 1974 in the US. You say 2.9, but 10-40 Valvoline I used was very thick in the cold temps of Maine, and created very loud valve clatter and hard starting in sub zero starts, but M1 5-20, which was much thinner gave quick and very quite starts in my OHV Chevy of that day.

You can't discern anything about HTHS during Maine ambient temperatures or starting a vehicle. That's the reason HTHS was added into SAE J300, and then subsequently tightened further. SAE grading mostly based upon KV is limited.


I agree. HTHS doesn't mean anything to me. But results do. That's why I use the oil I do.



You mean, that you use 5W-20? I do, as well.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
I agree. HTHS doesn't mean anything to me. But results do. That's why I use the oil I do.

It should, at least in the context of this discussion and Shannow's comments, both here and the 500 previous times he explained it to you.

You're being completely disingenuous in making such a statement.
 
..might as well just use some of this:



actually the 20wt 3 in 1 is thicker...
crackmeup2.gif





..not in my lifetime....
coffee2.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: tig1
I agree. HTHS doesn't mean anything to me. But results do. That's why I use the oil I do.

It should, at least in the context of this discussion and Shannow's comments, both here and the 500 previous times he explained it to you.

You're being completely disingenuous in making such a statement.


I agree with kschachn. HTHS is extremely important in determining how an oil will hold up in continuous use. That is why I asked if he meant the grade he uses.
 
Originally Posted By: LaCocina27
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: tig1
I agree. HTHS doesn't mean anything to me. But results do. That's why I use the oil I do.

It should, at least in the context of this discussion and Shannow's comments, both here and the 500 previous times he explained it to you.

You're being completely disingenuous in making such a statement.


I agree with kschachn. HTHS is extremely important in determining how an oil will hold up in continuous use. That is why I asked if he meant the grade he uses.


If you would re-read all the post of mine then you would realize Shannow was the one that responded to my comment about using M1 5-20 in 1978. You have it just backwards.
 
With Ford changing specs from 5w20 back to 5W30 on some of their offerings, I wonder if vehicles spec'd for 0W16 will be spec'd to a 20 grade after a few years of real world testing. Time will tell.
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: LaCocina27
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: tig1
I agree. HTHS doesn't mean anything to me. But results do. That's why I use the oil I do.

It should, at least in the context of this discussion and Shannow's comments, both here and the 500 previous times he explained it to you.

You're being completely disingenuous in making such a statement.


I agree with kschachn. HTHS is extremely important in determining how an oil will hold up in continuous use. That is why I asked if he meant the grade he uses.


If you would re-read all the post of mine then you would realize Shannow was the one that responded to my comment about using M1 5-20 in 1978. You have it just backwards.


So. Is HTHS important?
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
If you would re-read all the post of mine then you would realize Shannow was the one that responded to my comment about using M1 5-20 in 1978. You have it just backwards.


Same as every time...you use the "I used 5W20 in 1978, switching from 10W40"...THAT is where I step in.

As I have stated, over and over and over, the original M1 5W20 had an HTHS (actual bearing protection) comparible to a (poor) 10W40 of the day, which is EXACTLY why Mobil stated that it protected just as well.

And the HTHS of THAT M1 oil would be the same as Redline's offerings today, or an ILSAC 30 grade.

You may discount HTHS, but your engine doesn't...that's why it was researched...why the multigrades of the day were so useless at protecting things compared to their grade.

the M1 that you used then (when CAFE existed. and was implemented) was built entirely differently than modern oils, and yes, Mobil advertised it also for economy...

Yes you used it, yes you got good results, is it relevent to the push to 0W16s (might I add, the TOPIC here is 0W-16...you are always dismissing my comments as not on topic)...not a jot.
 
going to be great on my wheel barrow and mower wheels once it’s $2/quart … it should penetrate well …
 
Originally Posted By: Peter_480
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Any pictures?
smile.gif


I like how Wolf's Head has a 0w16 before Castrol/XOM/SOPUS/Valvoline and even the boutiques Redline/Amsoil/RP/etc
crazy2.gif



Wolf's Head is made by Amalie which is not exactly a small company and can run with the big boys.


Not sure if it's been mentioned in this thread, but Amalie also makes Carquest oil...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Assuming that the Penrite and Nulon offerings have an HTHS of 2.4 (grade minimum), they again hit the 1.0 mark or thereabouts.

So it APPEARS with the use of KV/High Shear that they are being made without VIIs...


Just got a reply from Penrite:
Originally Posted By: Penrite
Hi Jordan

Further to your query regarding HTHS:

Enviro+ Hybrid 0W16: HTHS; Typical 2.45 cP

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Con Tatlis
Technical Support


Regards
Jordan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
2023 Toyota Corolla
2 3
Replies
49
Views
4K
Jhemiway23
A
  • Locked
Oil for 2019 Prius commuter car
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
4K
Astro14
J
  • Locked
The new 2024 Subaru Crosstrek calls for 0w-16.
6 7 8
Replies
140
Views
21K
HowAboutThis
L
Toyota Hybrid Recommendations
2 3
Replies
53
Views
8K
Petr
R
Motul 8100 0w-20: Eco-Lite vs Eco-Clean (or anything else)? For Citroen C1 (Toyota Aygo)
Replies
11
Views
1K
vinu_neuro
Back
Top