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

[Bryanccfshr]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Patman
That doesn't always mean that they are right. People always point to the fact that in Europe and Australia the same cars use heavier weight oils but part of it is the fact that those people just don't embrace the thinner oils at all, so stores don't carry it.


Here's a map that Honda developed, and published in some of their papers.

It's their "reliability guarantee" map for different driving styles/markets...Load versus RPM...Chart is cumulative frequency.

It's use was to ensure that the durability of the engines was maintained for their respective markets.



Firstly RPM makes oil heat load far less...and as can be seen, the vast majority of the measured US driving is under low heating conditions...the Autobahn a lot more RPM...

maybe, just maybe, the different recommendations are due to the different driving conditions in the different markets, not just that we are dumb and hard to change. And thus the changes in recommendations for the corvette.


I like that chart and it is realistic. The issue I have is rather than provide the owner/operator with the right information for the proper oil to use in their category, in nt e USA the manufactures have to use language that is as close to mandating as the goverment can get to use an adequate viscosity for the lowest risk (and admittedly vast majority)group for everyone. This can have someone who has outlier driving habits or loads using a viscosity that is inadequate for that load.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
In other words Valvoline says it makes no difference what weight you run.


The only problem with that is Valvoline does not warranty the vehicle, Toyota does. So they set the rules.


That is a fair concern, but on closer inspection, I don't think it's a problem (in Australia anyway)

I've contacted Valvoline / Castrol about their oil recommendations and even questioned one as maybe not being correct. They took this question very seriously, and immediately ramped it up to the engineers at the car factory for their call on the situation. A few days later, the manufacturers got back to us with their decision and their reasoning. The oil companies strictly enforce the directions given to them by the vehicle manufacturers.

This makes sense, if Valvoline / Castrol say one thing, but Ford/GM/Toyota want something else, then you have a big problem. But it isn't a problem, as the vehicle manufacturers have the final say on what oil is recommended for their cars & trucks.

FYI I contacted them (oil manufacturers) because they said to use Dexos2 (high-HTHS C3 type oil) in the petrol (gas) GM Cruze with the 1.4 iTi engine. I suggested this was a mistake since in the USA they use a Dexos1 oil for this application (using my proud BITOG knowledge). GM-Australia got back to us and clearly said Dexos2 was the correct oil in Australia, and that it was required to keep the Australian warranty. I was wrong, Castrol & Valvoline were correct, and the umpires decision is clearly with the vehicle manufacturer and this is reflected in their advice.

So if Valvoline say it's OK to use 5W30 in the Camry, this came from Toyota.

 

[JLTD]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Patman
That doesn't always mean that they are right. People always point to the fact that in Europe and Australia the same cars use heavier weight oils but part of it is the fact that those people just don't embrace the thinner oils at all, so stores don't carry it.


Here's a map that Honda developed, and published in some of their papers.

It's their "reliability guarantee" map for different driving styles/markets...Load versus RPM...Chart is cumulative frequency.

It's use was to ensure that the durability of the engines was maintained for their respective markets.



Firstly RPM makes oil heat load far less...and as can be seen, the vast majority of the measured US driving is under low heating conditions...the Autobahn a lot more RPM...

maybe, just maybe, the different recommendations are due to the different driving conditions in the different markets, not just that we are dumb and hard to change. And thus the changes in recommendations for the corvette.


That sir, is a very astute observation. Regional driving styles and adequate protection? Kind of backs up some of the usage theories propounded here.



Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I've shown that it isn't a matter of government intervention.


Sorry, but I cannot agree. I must retort: (a-la Samuel Jackson in "Pulp Fiction")


Originally Posted By: fdcg27

A maker may then also recommend alternative grades, as Toyota does in indicating in their OMs that a thicker grade might be desirable under certain conditions.


Toyota says that "heavier oils are required for sufficient protection" in these situations but don't mention a specific grade of oil; I see this as a very intelligent sidestep, protecting the longevity/warranty/reputation of Toyota vehicles while not running afoul of regulations. Wouldn't have been necessary without CAFE.


Originally Posted By: fdcg27

The OM of our '09 Forester, a model well into the CAFE age, recommends 5w30 as the preferred grade, that being the grade used in the EPA certification testing. The OM goes on to provide a temp/visc chart allowing for a variety of grades to including 10W-40 and then also allows for the use of SAE 30, SAE 40 or 20W-50 under severe conditions.


I think you mean this chart, found online:

Which is the way that ALL vehicles in the US used to be, and how most vehicles are outside the US. 2009 is 9 years back and perhaps the law has changed since then. [edit: in fact a short search did find that there were numerous changes, both proposed and acted upon, during both the Bush and Obama administrations.]

I wonder just why Subaru made the change from multi-grade recommendations in 2009 to single grade recommendations later....


Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Subaru apparently no longer places much trust in their owners or their dealers since the only grade recommended for our '17 is 0W-20, although one can infer from the suggested add oils that thicker grades may be used.
I suspect that the reason that many US market OMs recommend but one grade is related to the makers not trusting their hapless owners or their unscrupulous dealers to make a reasonable grade selection for the temperature range following an oil change.


"apparently no longer places much trust" and "I suspect that the reason" are your opinions and don't prove the point.


While I don't think that there's some sort of conspiracy going on, there IS a government mandated program called CAFE, which has been modified numerous times since its inception in the 1970s and has contributed to thinner oils - see Shannow's link to the EPA letter sent to Honda as evidence.


Originally Posted By: fdcg27

A manufacturer may recommend a preferred grade, this being the one used in the EPA emissions cycle tests from which the fuel economy ratings are derived.


CAFE requires a manufacturer to recommend only the same grade used to achieve a mpg figure during testing. The manufacturer does not have a choice if they want to avoid the substantial financial penalty associated with slightly lower mpg over thousands of vehicles. Manufacturers can't even publish a chart with "recommended" grade and any other grade shown...


Look, I don't want to argue or have to joust over this any more. I've said my piece and we don't really agree, which is totally ok.

I'll just leave this quote I found:

Originally Posted By: thanksGoogle

Active debate
CAFE neither directly offers incentives for customers to choose fuel efficient vehicles nor directly affects fuel prices. Rather, it attempts to accomplish the goals indirectly, by making it more expensive for automakers to build inefficient vehicles by introducing penalties. The conservative Heartland Institute contends that CAFE standards do not work economically to consumers' benefit, smaller cars are more likely to be damaged in a collision, and insurance premiums for them are higher than for many larger cars. However, the Insurance Companies' Highway Loss Data Institute publishes data showing that larger vehicles are more expensive to insure.

CAFE advocates assert that most of the gains in fuel economy over the past 30 years can be attributed to the standard itself. Opponents assert that economic forces are responsible for fuel economy gains, and that higher fuel prices drove customers to seek more fuel-efficient vehicles.
CAFE standards have come under attack by some conservative thinktanks, along with safety experts, car and truck manufacturers, some consumer and environment groups, and organized labor.


We're not the only ones that disagree. Deuces.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: JLTD
That sir, is a very astute observation. Regional driving styles and adequate protection? Kind of backs up some of the usage theories propounded here.


On a related note, there's a reason GM, Ford, Dodge, etc recommend a thicker motor oil when the car is used for track purposes. It boils down to keeping an adequate "Minimum Oil Film Thickness" (MOFT) in the bearings when the oil gets hotter than in normal street driving conditions. Thicker oil is typically used on the track to ensure that the MOFT stays adequate enough to protect the engine. Same could be said for high speed Autobahn use, or any use situations where the oil temperature gets pretty high.

But it's also possible to maintain an adequate MOFT with a lighter oil if there's adequate oil cooling. A guy on YouTube with a 2015 Mustang GT (5.0L Coyote engine) would run his Mustang in track events all the time. I commented in the video asking what oil he used and he came back saying Mobil 1 5W-20. The car has a coolant-to-oil cooler (part of the oil filter mount) and always kept the oil under 240 deg F during the track use, so the 5W-20 was probably adequate. If his oil temperatures would have approached 280~300 F his engine might have suffered some possible damage. Personally, I would have ran at least a 5w30 for track use.

0W-16 will most likely be adequate for normal street driving where oil temps are 200~225 F. But anyone using it on the track would be a bit nuts and asking for problems IMO unless they had a very effective oil cooler.

Here's a table showing how the MOFT in the rod bearings decreases with lighter oils. Also note that the MOFT actually increases with increased RPM ... which is something that might actually help as the oil thins down more during track use when engine RPM is typically high. Don't lug down your engine when the oil is super thin - compare MOFT for 0W-20 at 2500 RPM vs 7500 RPM. It's more likely to damage a journal bearing from low speed lugging of the engine than during high engine RPM. 0W-16 will be pushing the MOFT to it's bare minimum at low RPM I would think.



Here was a good thread talking about "thin vs thick" oils, lots of good stuff - LINK

 

[Shannow]

Yes, and there's probably a lot of other stuff too...

I'd be prepared to run something thinner in a car with an auto then a manual...less chance of a shock load and stall, which has you relying on squeeze films.

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
If we follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then most of us are amiss in not running a 20W-50.


No, it's not a "logical conclusion", it's a logical fallacy. No-one in this thread (actually, in nearly any thread) is telling anyone that 20W50 is needed in virtually any application...so it's not the/a logical endstop.

Even still, people should recall that I was running 5W30 A3/B4 in my ZD30 turbodiesel Navara a LOOOOONNNGGGG time ago, when the manual called for 15W40...the Caprice was 20W50, with 15W40 for "cold" conditions. Similarly ran 5W30 A3/B4, and even an ILSAC 10W30 at one stage when 10W30 synthetics hit the Oz market.

Looking at more than the SAE grade, HTHS, apparent impact of viscosity index improvers, the 5W30 A3/B4 made more sense than the 5W40 and 0W40 offerings. the lighter HTHS ILSAC 10W30, with near no VII effect made it a decent choice in spite of what my manual called for.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Firstly RPM makes oil heat load far less...and as can be seen, the vast majority of the measured US driving is under low heating conditions...the Autobahn a lot more RPM...


Should have been

Originally Posted By: Shannow

Firstly RPM makes oil heat, load far less...and as can be seen, the vast majority of the measured US driving is under low heating conditions...the Autobahn a lot more RPM...

 

[wemay]

Posted in the upcoming Pennzoil Q&A:

Is it safe to say that the newer developing technologies lie in increasingly thinner (<5w30) motor oils? As such, does this place the U.S., with its CAFE requirements, at the leading edge of motor oil science by default?

 

[Shannow]

I think that would apply more to the Japanese...after all, they were the ones who messed with 0W20 to get their mileage aims, while petitioning API and ILSAC to adopt grades below 20.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


Even still, people should recall that I was running 5W30 A3/B4 in my ZD30 turbodiesel Navara a LOOOOONNNGGGG time ago, when the manual called for 15W40...the Caprice was 20W50, with 15W40 for "cold" conditions. Similarly ran 5W30 A3/B4, and even an ILSAC 10W30 at one stage when 10W30 synthetics hit the Oz market.


And just to add, my car owners manual calls for a high HTHS (> 3.5 cP) Euro A3/B3 or A3/B4 oil in either 30 or 40 grade. Previous to the Penrite 10W40 I'm running now, I used a low HTHS ILSAC oil (Mobil 1 5W30, HTHS = 3.1 cP) without issue or concern.

So us "thick oil Aussies" are quite happy to go thinner than the owners manual (OM) if it makes sense. For me, I had an auto box, and I was no longer racing my mates through the mountains. Rather I was taking my son to school then going to work. I felt confident that Mobil 1 5W30 could do the job required.

I've switched back to 10W40 A3/B4 oils simply because they are one of the cheapest oils to buy in Australia, plus they are the "correct" oil according to my owners manual. Not that I worship the OM as a religious text, but rather a guide to be used with common sense and an eye on local conditions.

 

[wemay]

4-Trends-in-Shear-Stability-of-Automotive-Engine-Oils.pdf

 

[wemay]

http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/march-2015/ultra-low-viscosity-challenges

 

[SR5]

Thanks Wemay,

I'll just add that all ACEA Euro oils are already required to pass a KO shear stability, stay-in-grade test. Unlike API Sx oils.

So if you want a shear stable, low HTHS fuel economy oil, then A5/B5 is your hunting ground. For high HTHS, go for A3/B4.

BTW Pennzoil Platinum 5w30 is A5/B5.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I think that would apply more to the Japanese...after all, they were the ones who messed with 0W20 to get their mileage aims, while petitioning API and ILSAC to adopt grades below 20.


Yes, good point.

 

[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.

 

[Shannow]

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.


Wait a minute...didn't they just invent the grade per your original post ?

Some people like following orders...some people like thinking.

 

[wemay]

That's the long and short of it.

 

[gfh77665]

Whelp, despite all the CAFE madness, and all the inabilities of so many to understand that CAFE (not protection) drove the ultra thin oils, it ultimately does not matter to me. As long as I can buy 10w30, I am happy. I don't think 10w30 disappearance is imminent, not by a long shot. Drive on!

 

[Shannow]

With regard to the "engines are lasting longer than ever on thin oils" fallacy...there's correlation and causation.

What's the biggest killer of engines ?

Cooling system failure...you've had one, I've had one, idiot neighbour had one and baked the head.

Have cooling systems become amazingly more reliable in the last 30 years ? ... Definitely yes.

Has that correlated with the reduction in viscosity and the "longer than ever" engine life ? ... errm yes.

Did GPS and bluetooth make engines last longer ?

Apparently yes. by the logic displayed on BITOG these days. Science isn't good enough, so anecdotes rule.

(but when the cooling system is compromised, which oil parameter is your best friend ???)

 

[hatt]

If you're going to go to bat for manufacturer recommendations make sure to not change transmission and other fluids that aren't recommended to be changed.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Wait a minute...didn't they just invent the grade per your original post? Some people like following orders...some people like thinking.


More like beating your head against a wall because it feels good when you quit. What difference does it make what they "invented", or didn't? You have not, and cannot offer ANY proof that if I increase the weight of the oil in my brand new vehicle, against what the manufacturer recommends, that it will last any longer. It has nothing to do with "following orders". If it makes you think or feel that you're "smarter" by deviating from what the manufacturer who built your engine tells you to use, then by all means do so. But don't try to tell me or anyone else they are hurting their engines, or are going to experience shorter engine life by following what the manufacturer recommends.