0W-16 Oil....... Really ??

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL





This is why truck manuals, like mentioned by other posters, include lines about using a heavier lubricant if heavy towing. It is why GM recommends 15w-50 in their Corvette and Camaro cars when tracked, but 5w30 (or even thinner now) when driven on the street.



They have never recommended thinner than 5w30 for the Corvette or Camaro, and don't forget that the 2019 Corvette (which is in production now) it's being factory filled with the new Mobil 1 ESP 0w40. They are also making it backwards compatible for all C7 Corvettes.

I still do believe in the thinner oils for cars like my Honda Civic, but for harder driven cars like my Corvette I do feel more comfortable with an oil that has an HTHS of 3.5 or higher (which is why I'm anxious to switch from Mobil 1 5w30 which only has an HTHS of around 3.0 to 3.1)


I was thinking about the Dexos 1 spec, which also allows 0w-30, but that's not really "thinner", you are right. I know some of the other GM vehicles with the same engine family now call for xW-20's though

This is from the Camaro manual, which I thought was neat, it is under the Track use section:

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Patman
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL





This is why truck manuals, like mentioned by other posters, include lines about using a heavier lubricant if heavy towing. It is why GM recommends 15w-50 in their Corvette and Camaro cars when tracked, but 5w30 (or even thinner now) when driven on the street.




They have never recommended thinner than 5w30 for the Corvette or Camaro, and don't forget that the 2019 Corvette (which is in production now) it's being factory filled with the new Mobil 1 ESP 0w40. They are also making it backwards compatible for all C7 Corvettes.

I still do believe in the thinner oils for cars like my Honda Civic, but for harder driven cars like my Corvette I do feel more comfortable with an oil that has an HTHS of 3.5 or higher (which is why I'm anxious to switch from Mobil 1 5w30 which only has an HTHS of around 3.0 to 3.1)



I was thinking about the Dexos 1 spec, which also allows 0w-30, but that's not really "thinner", you are right. I know some of the other GM vehicles with the same engine family now call for xW-20's though

This is from the Camaro manual, which I thought was neat, it is under the Track use section:





Very interesting. Thanks. It makes you wonder how many owners take their brand new Camaro out and give it a good year before reading this or being told about it?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: billt460
So.... We have pages more of arguing, yet the original question is still basically unanswered. It's immaterial HOW or WHY the manufacturers went to these thinner weight oils. They did. And they've been running them for millions of miles, in millions of vehicles, for many years. In every conceivable climate and temperature that exists on this planet. It's also immaterial to compare that, to what's in a race engine that is screaming around a race track at 7,000+ RPM all afternoon long. Or a Top Fuel engine that's designed to be completely rebuilt after less than 5 seconds of full throttle operation. In short, it doesn't matter. The issue I'm not seeing addressed is 2 fold.

1). There is no evidence that running these thinner weight oils that are now manufacturer recommended, for whatever reason, shortens the life of ANY new car they're being called upon to be run in. In fact it's just the opposite. Today's modern engines are lasting longer than ever before. And are doing so on less frequent oil changes, compared to cars from 30 or 40 years ago. That ran much more frequent oil changes, (3,000 miles for many), and much thicker weight oil, (10W-40, 20W-50). While there may be other added factors for this increased longevity besides oil, there is zero evidence that thinner oils themselves are contributing to trashing these engines before their time. As I said, the opposite is proving to be true.

2.) Warranty. If you take it upon yourself to run a heavier weight oil, and you suffer a major internal failure for any reason, you run the risk of having your warranty voided. Is this guaranteed? No. But it is an expensive risk if it were to happen, that offers no reward for taking it.

Everything else is Saturday afternoon bar room talk, nothing more. I just shelled out close to $30K cash for a new vehicle. I intend to keep it a very long time. And in doing so I want to take care of it in the best way possible. I don't believe substituting oils and other fluids, other than what the manufacturer recommends is the best way to go about doing this. Mostly because I can find no proof or evidence that my vehicle will last any longer if I do. It really is just that simple.

I think there's been plenty of technical inputs that say thicker oils have their places of use and can certainly give added engine protection. And even why thinner oil is recommended for consumers in the USA and the CAFE connection. You seem to discount all that info as skirting the issue ot the "original question". Go read that 29 page thread I gave a link to earlier.

If you're confortable with the manufacturer's recomendation then go get the oil and use it. Your car will probably last long enough if it's always used in a normal manner on the public streets.

 

[fdcg27]

Not sure how relevant a letter from eighteen years ago is. Should Honda or Ford have thumbed their noses at this letter, USEPA would have then found itself in a legal wrangle that it would then have had to negotiate its way out of.
A letter expresses an opinion and does not have the force of something that follows the process to become part of the CFR, much less law.
This also fails to explain how Toyota was able to recommend the use of thicker grades under certain conditions while Subaru was able to recommend a wide variety of grades under a wide variety of conditions.
It should also be borne in mind that EPA is no more than an agency within the executive branch. As such, it dances to the tune of whomever happens to be running the executive branch at any given time.
While POTUS can't overrule federal statute, he can overrule the regulatory interpretations made in implementing it.
Much of the CFR consists of agency regulations made under the authority of an underlying statute, since the Congress lacks the expertise or time to write laws of sufficient detail to implement things like the Clean Air Act or CAFE. Regulations are always more easily revisited and revised than statutes.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Silverado12
Amsoil commentary

I can't find the article I read in the early 2000s, but here's some commentary about this subject.


This is categorically NOT commentary or anything else from Amsoil. It's the OPINION from a dealer.

Please contact a site moderator and have your post edited. Also - Links from non-sponsor Amsoil dealers are not allowed. Thank you.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: billt460
What is to be gained by going against manufacturer specifications and recommendations by using a thicker oil?



I don't know, I'd have to ask the engineers that built my car[/B] vs the corporate brass that wrote the warranty. Mazda seems to think thicker oil is better for Canadians and Mexicans, but not for Americans( which is where CAFE is in effect).

My 2017 CX-5 manual states that in the USA you must use 0w20 for the Warranty. The manual also states for Canada, and Mexico that you should use 5w30, and only if 5w30 is unavailable you should use 5W-20.

So according to the engineers, 5W30 is the best oil for Canada to Mexico, but not in between. CAFE is the only reason here.

So the engineers think something is to be gained with thicker oil, but only in Canada and Mexico.

 

[gfh77665]

Originally Posted By: billt460

It's not a question if CAFE is B.S. or not. Or that this is all mileage related at the expense of the consumer getting screwed over with a car that won't last as long. It has to do with the fact there simply is no evidence any of these newer, thinner oils are hurting anything, period. Or that you'll get any benefit by not using them in favor of something thicker.


LOL, You better check the latest automotive news before posting such nonsense. Some are manufactures changing back.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Originally Posted By: billt460
What is to be gained by going against manufacturer specifications and recommendations by using a thicker oil?



I don't know, I'd have to ask the engineers that built my car[/B] vs the corporate brass that wrote the warranty. Mazda seems to think thicker oil is better for Canadians and Mexicans, but not for Americans( which is where CAFE is in effect).

My 2017 CX-5 manual states that in the USA you must use 0w20 for the Warranty. The manual also states for Canada, and Mexico that you should use 5w30, and only if 5w30 is unavailable you should use 5W-20.

So according to the engineers, 5W30 is the best oil for Canada to Mexico, but not in between. CAFE is the only reason here.

So the engineers think something is to be gained with thicker oil, but only in Canada and Mexico.




In my research before buying my CX5 ( great vehicle by the way), I read that the SkyActiv engines were designed and built from the onset with 0w20 oil in mind. This is my first time as well running this grade but I have no worries in doing so. I will stick with major brands that meet d1G2 specs even though I don’t have the turbo. The engine runs quiet and smooth and frankly, these engines don’t work hardly at all in normal day to day driving.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Originally Posted By: billt460

It's not a question if CAFE is B.S. or not. Or that this is all mileage related at the expense of the consumer getting screwed over with a car that won't last as long. It has to do with the fact there simply is no evidence any of these newer, thinner oils are hurting anything, period. Or that you'll get any benefit by not using them in favor of something thicker.


LOL, You better check the latest automotive news before posting such nonsense. Some are manufactures changing back.


Yep, reducing warranty claims might be making more dollars and sense [pun intended] than CAFE credits in some cases.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Not sure how relevant a letter from eighteen years ago is. Should Honda or Ford have thumbed their noses at this letter, USEPA would have then found itself in a legal wrangle that it would then have had to negotiate its way out of.
A letter expresses an opinion and does not have the force of something that follows the process to become part of the CFR, much less law.


EPA letters that "require" certain actions ... ummm... "require" those certain actions. "must" is also a "must", when it's in a letter from the EPA...it's not opinion. It's enforcable.

Why does the same engine sold in OZ say "oil", instead of xWY viscosity ?

The manufacturers have a requirement under CAFE to do everything reasonably practicable to ensure that owners, and future owners comply with what the vehicle was qualified with...it's termed "anti backsliding".

 

[Shannow]

As to the "freshness" of the letter, here's one from 2004...a little less ambiguous.

http://mycommittees.api.org/lubricants/P...h8epaletter.pdf


here's one from 2016..it's for diesels, same thing 'though.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=36843&flag=1

Is that current enough, or does it need to be updated weekly to be relevant ?

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665

LOL, You better check the latest automotive news before posting such nonsense. Some are manufactures changing back.


Really? How many are "changing back?" Give us a percentage since the "latest auto news" has this information. I'm sure you can show this significant change since the OPs comment is such "nonsense."

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: wemay

That's the long and short of it.


Going to ask the OP to prove his "decades" of 0W16 ???

given the requirement for statistical analysis...

 

[Shannow]

OK wemay, as a reasonable poster.

What is the reason d'etre for the ongoing reduction in oil viscosity.

Simple one or two word answer will suffice.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
....You better check the latest automotive news before posting such nonsense. Some are manufactures changing back.


As wemay said.... Who? And changing back to what? From what? Why? Stop being so vague. If you have for certain information, then post it.... With a link.

 

[Shannow]

LOL from the man with a single Owner's Manual as a reference point...an Owner's manual that while surprising him with something unique, new, and entirely previously unheard of, provided vast amounts of historical knowledge...

But some people like to be told what to do.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
My 2017 CX-5 manual states that in the USA you must use 0w20 for the Warranty.


So..... Here we are, after arguing back and forth for over 12 pages. Posting "engineering letters" older than fossilized invertebrates. And comparing thinner oils to Bluetooth, cooling systems, and everything else except Grandma's chocolate chip cookies. And we still keep hitting the same wall.....

So tell me, what is going to be your choice in this matter? Are you going to preserve your new car warranty with Mazda, by running the oil they are telling you that you must use? Or are you going to, "protect your engine" with that wonderful, thicker oil the Mexicans are all using? Seeing as we're both new car owners, I'm curious, which in your case, do you think is the smarter play to make?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: spasm3
My 2017 CX-5 manual states that in the USA you must use 0w20 for the Warranty.


So..... Here we are, after arguing back and forth for over 12 pages. Posting "engineering letters" older than fossilized invertebrates. And comparing thinner oils to Bluetooth, cooling systems, and everything else except Grandma's chocolate chip cookies. And we still keep hitting the same wall.....


Bill...decades of 0W16...focus please.

 

[Shannow]

And while you are focusing, what is the reason d'etre for 0W16 ?

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Bill...decades of 0W16...focus please.


This is what I posted...

Originally Posted By: billt460
......It's immaterial HOW or WHY the manufacturers went to these thinner weight oils. They did. And they've been running them for millions of miles, in millions of vehicles, for many years......


Nowhere did I ever say 0W-16 was in use for "decades". In fact if you read my first post, you would see I believed it was quite new, to the point it's the first I've heard of it.

Originally Posted By: billt460
So yesterday I bought a brand new 2018 Toyota Camry. One of the first things I noticed was the sticker under the hood that called out for 0W-16 Engine Oil. I never even heard of that weight.


But as is always the case with you, you are so busy, "thinking" and or playing "engineer", you have trouble with reading the written word as printed. Most likely because you're more concerned over the viscosity of the chocolate chips when they melt. Or else are too busy posting one of your "engineering graphs" that look like they came straight from a Kindergarten finger painting session. And prove just about as much. But regardless, carry on cupcake.