0W-16 Oil....... Really ??
- Thread starter billt460
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 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.
That argument is totally invalid because no one, including the manufacturer, would argue that more frequent fluid changes, be they oil, coolant, or transmission fluid, is going to hurt anything. Using out of spec fluids and oils will. No manufacturer will void a warranty because you changed your fluids too often, provided you can document you used what is called for. They WILL void it if you substitute because "you were thinking" instead of "following orders".
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.
That argument is totally invalid because no one, including the manufacturer, would argue that more frequent fluid changes, be they oil, coolant, or transmission fluid, is going to hurt anything. Using out of spec fluids and oils will. No manufacturer will void a warranty because you changed your fluids too often, provided you can document you used what is called for. They WILL void it if you substitute because "you were thinking" instead of "following orders".
Gave you plenty of stuff to think about, including stuff from OEMs, explaining the compromise that they are making on your behalf.
Plus some of the reasons that they did it...
But "follow the book" is a lifetime learned skill, so have at it.
Plus some of the reasons that they did it...
But "follow the book" is a lifetime learned skill, so have at it.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: 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.
That argument is totally invalid because no one, including the manufacturer, would argue that more frequent fluid changes, be they oil, coolant, or transmission fluid, is going to hurt anything.
But they often tell you "filled for life"...in the manual...how could anything be better than that book ?
Have t=you got EVIDENCE that they endorse earlier changes ?
Originally Posted By: 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.
That argument is totally invalid because no one, including the manufacturer, would argue that more frequent fluid changes, be they oil, coolant, or transmission fluid, is going to hurt anything.
But they often tell you "filled for life"...in the manual...how could anything be better than that book ?
Have t=you got EVIDENCE that they endorse earlier changes ?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: billt460
But don't try to tell me or anyone else they are hurting their engines
OK, quote me where I told you any such thing...please...
Now you're backpedaling. Then why would you substitute? For what purpose? Explain to me what I'm going to be gaining by tossing manufacturer recommendations out the window, and instead start "thinking" and "winging it" on my own?
Originally Posted By: billt460
But don't try to tell me or anyone else they are hurting their engines
OK, quote me where I told you any such thing...please...
Now you're backpedaling. Then why would you substitute? For what purpose? Explain to me what I'm going to be gaining by tossing manufacturer recommendations out the window, and instead start "thinking" and "winging it" on my own?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
But they often tell you "filled for life"...in the manual...how could anything be better than that book?
How about this. You "like to think". And let's add to that your an "engineer" with all of this vast experience that I don't have, because I "follow orders". So based on that, and because I want my new car to last as long as possible, I'm asking you... What am I going to gain in engine longevity, or anything else for that matter, by running a heavy weight oil against what the manufacturer recommends? If you feel the answer is nothing, then please explain why I should do it?
But they often tell you "filled for life"...in the manual...how could anything be better than that book?
How about this. You "like to think". And let's add to that your an "engineer" with all of this vast experience that I don't have, because I "follow orders". So based on that, and because I want my new car to last as long as possible, I'm asking you... What am I going to gain in engine longevity, or anything else for that matter, by running a heavy weight oil against what the manufacturer recommends? If you feel the answer is nothing, then please explain why I should do it?
Originally Posted By: wemay
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/march-2015/ultra-low-viscosity-challenges
They used the words "some engines," for a reason. Then I think why did Ford go back to a 30 grade oil in "some" of their engines to reduce warranty claims. That got me thinking, maybe engineers aren't always right. "Some engines" were specifically built to run on these thin oils, which is fantastic. Others got a change in a fill cap to meet CAFE requirements with no engine changes at all, were the thinner oils really best for these engines all along? I doubt it. I wonder if they'll start back specing 0W20 engines to 0W16 to boost sales of 0W16 oil? Time will tell.
http://www.infineuminsight.com/insight/march-2015/ultra-low-viscosity-challenges
They used the words "some engines," for a reason. Then I think why did Ford go back to a 30 grade oil in "some" of their engines to reduce warranty claims. That got me thinking, maybe engineers aren't always right. "Some engines" were specifically built to run on these thin oils, which is fantastic. Others got a change in a fill cap to meet CAFE requirements with no engine changes at all, were the thinner oils really best for these engines all along? I doubt it. I wonder if they'll start back specing 0W20 engines to 0W16 to boost sales of 0W16 oil? Time will tell.
The Toyota dealer stated to me that the Camry engine is a new design, not a re spected thinner oil older design.
"But they often tell you "filled for life"...in the manual...how could anything be better than that book ?"
"As to proof that manufacturers will not say more frequent changes are not needed" I would ask why every dealer has their own maintenance schedule which always has more frequent changes of all fluids. The owner has the option of fluid for life or change according to dealer's schedule but more frequent will not void a warranty
"But they often tell you "filled for life"...in the manual...how could anything be better than that book ?"
"As to proof that manufacturers will not say more frequent changes are not needed" I would ask why every dealer has their own maintenance schedule which always has more frequent changes of all fluids. The owner has the option of fluid for life or change according to dealer's schedule but more frequent will not void a warranty
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
.......I wonder if they'll start back specing 0W20 engines to 0W16 to boost sales of 0W16 oil? Time will tell.
I don't know and I really don't care. Because for the most part it's meaningless. It's not as if they started doing this last week. They have been going to thinner weight oils for well over 20 years now. And many people have been screaming about it for the same length of time. And as I said, if these thin oils induced greater wear, we would be seeing it in shorter engine life and greater oil consumption. That in itself would start causing a lot of emission problems for people. Especially in states with very strict vehicle emission standards like California. None of that is happening.
2 decades is a long time to prove something, one way or the other. Especially with millions of vehicles being driven millions of miles, by millions of consumers. That in itself is pretty convincing. As I said from the beginning. If using thicker weight oil in these modern engines added service life, there would be actual evidence of it everywhere.
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.
.......I wonder if they'll start back specing 0W20 engines to 0W16 to boost sales of 0W16 oil? Time will tell.
I don't know and I really don't care. Because for the most part it's meaningless. It's not as if they started doing this last week. They have been going to thinner weight oils for well over 20 years now. And many people have been screaming about it for the same length of time. And as I said, if these thin oils induced greater wear, we would be seeing it in shorter engine life and greater oil consumption. That in itself would start causing a lot of emission problems for people. Especially in states with very strict vehicle emission standards like California. None of that is happening.
2 decades is a long time to prove something, one way or the other. Especially with millions of vehicles being driven millions of miles, by millions of consumers. That in itself is pretty convincing. As I said from the beginning. If using thicker weight oil in these modern engines added service life, there would be actual evidence of it everywhere.
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.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: 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.
That argument is totally invalid because no one, including the manufacturer, would argue that more frequent fluid changes, be they oil, coolant, or transmission fluid, is going to hurt anything. Using out of spec fluids and oils will. No manufacturer will void a warranty because you changed your fluids too often, provided you can document you used what is called for. They WILL void it if you substitute because "you were thinking" instead of "following orders".
The manufacturers aren't saying higher viscosity grades will hurt anything. In fact your manual for your new Camry says they may be needed.
The void your warranty stuff comes up constantly but I've yet to see evidence posted where it happened because someone used a thicker oil.
Originally Posted By: 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.
That argument is totally invalid because no one, including the manufacturer, would argue that more frequent fluid changes, be they oil, coolant, or transmission fluid, is going to hurt anything. Using out of spec fluids and oils will. No manufacturer will void a warranty because you changed your fluids too often, provided you can document you used what is called for. They WILL void it if you substitute because "you were thinking" instead of "following orders".
The manufacturers aren't saying higher viscosity grades will hurt anything. In fact your manual for your new Camry says they may be needed.
The void your warranty stuff comes up constantly but I've yet to see evidence posted where it happened because someone used a thicker oil.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
.......I wonder if they'll start back specing 0W20 engines to 0W16 to boost sales of 0W16 oil? Time will tell.
I don't know and I really don't care. Because for the most part it's meaningless. It's not as if they started doing this last week. They have been going to thinner weight oils for well over 20 years now. And many people have been screaming about it for the same length of time. And as I said, if these thin oils induced greater wear, we would be seeing it in shorter engine life and greater oil consumption. That in itself would start causing a lot of emission problems for people. Especially in states with very strict vehicle emission standards like California. None of that is happening.
2 decades is a long time to prove something, one way or the other. Especially with millions of vehicles being driven millions of miles, by millions of consumers. That in itself is pretty convincing. As I said from the beginning. If using thicker weight oil in these modern engines added service life, there would be actual evidence of it everywhere.
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.
OK. How about the Fords that had viscosity changes to reduce warranty claims? Do those count?
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
.......I wonder if they'll start back specing 0W20 engines to 0W16 to boost sales of 0W16 oil? Time will tell.
I don't know and I really don't care. Because for the most part it's meaningless. It's not as if they started doing this last week. They have been going to thinner weight oils for well over 20 years now. And many people have been screaming about it for the same length of time. And as I said, if these thin oils induced greater wear, we would be seeing it in shorter engine life and greater oil consumption. That in itself would start causing a lot of emission problems for people. Especially in states with very strict vehicle emission standards like California. None of that is happening.
2 decades is a long time to prove something, one way or the other. Especially with millions of vehicles being driven millions of miles, by millions of consumers. That in itself is pretty convincing. As I said from the beginning. If using thicker weight oil in these modern engines added service life, there would be actual evidence of it everywhere.
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.
OK. How about the Fords that had viscosity changes to reduce warranty claims? Do those count?
Originally Posted By: hatt
The void your warranty stuff comes up constantly but I've yet to see evidence posted where it happened because someone used a thicker oil.
So then let's leave warranty out of it. We're right back at the same place. What is to be gained by going against manufacturer specifications and recommendations by using a thicker oil?
The void your warranty stuff comes up constantly but I've yet to see evidence posted where it happened because someone used a thicker oil.
So then let's leave warranty out of it. We're right back at the same place. What is to be gained by going against manufacturer specifications and recommendations by using a thicker oil?
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
The void your warranty stuff comes up constantly but I've yet to see evidence posted where it happened because someone used a thicker oil.
So then let's leave warranty out of it. We're right back at the same place. What is to be gained by going against manufacturer specifications and recommendations by using a thicker oil?
I sleep better at night knowing my engine components and 100 feet of timing chain aren't protected by bare minimum oil viscosity.
Originally Posted By: hatt
The void your warranty stuff comes up constantly but I've yet to see evidence posted where it happened because someone used a thicker oil.
So then let's leave warranty out of it. We're right back at the same place. What is to be gained by going against manufacturer specifications and recommendations by using a thicker oil?
I sleep better at night knowing my engine components and 100 feet of timing chain aren't protected by bare minimum oil viscosity.
Why be concerned about 0w16 oil.
It is just that close to 0-20 oil that proved to be good in a properly made motor.
Looks like with advance metallurgy and better metal milling techniques, tolerances are getting tight and 0w16 oil is what needed.
use with confidence.
It is just that close to 0-20 oil that proved to be good in a properly made motor.
Looks like with advance metallurgy and better metal milling techniques, tolerances are getting tight and 0w16 oil is what needed.
use with confidence.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
The void your warranty stuff comes up constantly but I've yet to see evidence posted where it happened because someone used a thicker oil.
So then let's leave warranty out of it. We're right back at the same place. What is to be gained by going against manufacturer specifications and recommendations by using a thicker oil?
But you aren't always going against the manufacturer recommendations, in some cases you are actually following them.
An example:
Ford spec'd 5w-20 for the Coyote in the Mustang GT. Unless you ordered the "Track Pack", which included an oil cooler and modified PCM programming, then it spec'd 5w-50. This was the exact same engine. The difference? Intended use.
Now, Ford wasn't stupid about this. They include PCM programming that monitors oil temperature, like many other brands on this quest for increased fuel economy, and, if oil temperatures get too high, they limit output. In fact, this is exactly what happened with some of the Mustang GT's (non track-pack) that were taken to the track. And this experience is what drove Ford to developing the Track Pack option package for the car.
In the quest for increased fuel economy, keeping oil temperatures under control is paramount. More and more engines are being fitted with oil heat exchangers that work to not only keep oil temperature down, but also bring it up to temperature quicker via the coolant. This again, aides with fuel economy. Also, providing more control over oil temperature means control over minimum viscosity, which in turn means you can get closer to the ragged edge of the safety margin.
This is not untested carelessness by the manufacturers. They have determined that, under typical North American operating conditions, they are able to spec a thinner lubricant without having a significant impact on engine life. In scenarios that might prove atypical they allow for greater viscosity or they utilize a thermal castration mechanism to prevent damage.
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. Viscosity applicability is not universal, though it can be made moreso through the methods I've already covered.
Toyota is, based on their research, banking on your driving profile falling within the acceptable usage pattern for the 0w-16 lubricant. They have deemed the product sufficient for that use and while a more viscous product might provide a better margin of wear protection or may even reduce wear overall, it is insignificant in the lifespan of your car. This is basically what Honda's documentation that Shannow mentioned outlines. It's a trade-off and one that is essentially invisible and insignificant to the end user based on how long the engine is going to last regardless.
Originally Posted By: hatt
The void your warranty stuff comes up constantly but I've yet to see evidence posted where it happened because someone used a thicker oil.
So then let's leave warranty out of it. We're right back at the same place. What is to be gained by going against manufacturer specifications and recommendations by using a thicker oil?
But you aren't always going against the manufacturer recommendations, in some cases you are actually following them.
An example:
Ford spec'd 5w-20 for the Coyote in the Mustang GT. Unless you ordered the "Track Pack", which included an oil cooler and modified PCM programming, then it spec'd 5w-50. This was the exact same engine. The difference? Intended use.
Now, Ford wasn't stupid about this. They include PCM programming that monitors oil temperature, like many other brands on this quest for increased fuel economy, and, if oil temperatures get too high, they limit output. In fact, this is exactly what happened with some of the Mustang GT's (non track-pack) that were taken to the track. And this experience is what drove Ford to developing the Track Pack option package for the car.
In the quest for increased fuel economy, keeping oil temperatures under control is paramount. More and more engines are being fitted with oil heat exchangers that work to not only keep oil temperature down, but also bring it up to temperature quicker via the coolant. This again, aides with fuel economy. Also, providing more control over oil temperature means control over minimum viscosity, which in turn means you can get closer to the ragged edge of the safety margin.
This is not untested carelessness by the manufacturers. They have determined that, under typical North American operating conditions, they are able to spec a thinner lubricant without having a significant impact on engine life. In scenarios that might prove atypical they allow for greater viscosity or they utilize a thermal castration mechanism to prevent damage.
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. Viscosity applicability is not universal, though it can be made moreso through the methods I've already covered.
Toyota is, based on their research, banking on your driving profile falling within the acceptable usage pattern for the 0w-16 lubricant. They have deemed the product sufficient for that use and while a more viscous product might provide a better margin of wear protection or may even reduce wear overall, it is insignificant in the lifespan of your car. This is basically what Honda's documentation that Shannow mentioned outlines. It's a trade-off and one that is essentially invisible and insignificant to the end user based on how long the engine is going to last regardless.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
The void your warranty stuff comes up constantly but I've yet to see evidence posted where it happened because someone used a thicker oil.
So then let's leave warranty out of it. We're right back at the same place. What is to be gained by going against manufacturer specifications and recommendations by using a thicker oil?
But you aren't always going against the manufacturer recommendations, in some cases you are actually following them.
An example:
Ford spec'd 5w-20 for the Coyote in the Mustang GT. Unless you ordered the "Track Pack", which included an oil cooler and modified PCM programming, then it spec'd 5w-50. This was the exact same engine. The difference? Intended use.
Now, Ford wasn't stupid about this. They include PCM programming that monitors oil temperature, like many other brands on this quest for increased fuel economy, and, if oil temperatures get too high, they limit output. In fact, this is exactly what happened with some of the Mustang GT's (non track-pack) that were taken to the track. And this experience is what drove Ford to developing the Track Pack option package for the car.
In the quest for increased fuel economy, keeping oil temperatures under control is paramount. More and more engines are being fitted with oil heat exchangers that work to not only keep oil temperature down, but also bring it up to temperature quicker via the coolant. This again, aides with fuel economy. Also, providing more control over oil temperature means control over minimum viscosity, which in turn means you can get closer to the ragged edge of the safety margin.
This is not untested carelessness by the manufacturers. They have determined that, under typical North American operating conditions, they are able to spec a thinner lubricant without having a significant impact on engine life. In scenarios that might prove atypical they allow for greater viscosity or they utilize a thermal castration mechanism to prevent damage.
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. Viscosity applicability is not universal, though it can be made moreso through the methods I've already covered.
Toyota is, based on their research, banking on your driving profile falling within the acceptable usage pattern for the 0w-16 lubricant. They have deemed the product sufficient for that use and while a more viscous product might provide a better margin of wear protection or may even reduce wear overall, it is insignificant in the lifespan of your car. This is basically what Honda's documentation that Shannow mentioned outlines. It's a trade-off and one that is essentially invisible and insignificant to the end user based on how long the engine is going to last regardless.
Which is why many of us have been saying for years one size doesn't fit all. It is nice to have the option to use an oil that meets the demands placed on the engine, and sometimes thinking out of the box is not a bad thing either.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: hatt
The void your warranty stuff comes up constantly but I've yet to see evidence posted where it happened because someone used a thicker oil.
So then let's leave warranty out of it. We're right back at the same place. What is to be gained by going against manufacturer specifications and recommendations by using a thicker oil?
But you aren't always going against the manufacturer recommendations, in some cases you are actually following them.
An example:
Ford spec'd 5w-20 for the Coyote in the Mustang GT. Unless you ordered the "Track Pack", which included an oil cooler and modified PCM programming, then it spec'd 5w-50. This was the exact same engine. The difference? Intended use.
Now, Ford wasn't stupid about this. They include PCM programming that monitors oil temperature, like many other brands on this quest for increased fuel economy, and, if oil temperatures get too high, they limit output. In fact, this is exactly what happened with some of the Mustang GT's (non track-pack) that were taken to the track. And this experience is what drove Ford to developing the Track Pack option package for the car.
In the quest for increased fuel economy, keeping oil temperatures under control is paramount. More and more engines are being fitted with oil heat exchangers that work to not only keep oil temperature down, but also bring it up to temperature quicker via the coolant. This again, aides with fuel economy. Also, providing more control over oil temperature means control over minimum viscosity, which in turn means you can get closer to the ragged edge of the safety margin.
This is not untested carelessness by the manufacturers. They have determined that, under typical North American operating conditions, they are able to spec a thinner lubricant without having a significant impact on engine life. In scenarios that might prove atypical they allow for greater viscosity or they utilize a thermal castration mechanism to prevent damage.
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. Viscosity applicability is not universal, though it can be made moreso through the methods I've already covered.
Toyota is, based on their research, banking on your driving profile falling within the acceptable usage pattern for the 0w-16 lubricant. They have deemed the product sufficient for that use and while a more viscous product might provide a better margin of wear protection or may even reduce wear overall, it is insignificant in the lifespan of your car. This is basically what Honda's documentation that Shannow mentioned outlines. It's a trade-off and one that is essentially invisible and insignificant to the end user based on how long the engine is going to last regardless.
Patman
Staff member
Originally Posted By: 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 ???)
Last year I overheated my Civic, the coolant temperature according to my Scangauge was around 275F! (my fan only comes on if I turn on the AC and I was stuck in downtown Toronto traffic and stupidly forgot to turn on the AC to keep things running cooler) I shut off the engine and parked the car and went to a baseball game so it had a chance to fully cool off. When I restarted it, there were no ill effects. I changed the oil and the coolant right away. I was running Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0w20. It's things like this that give me full confidence to continue running a 20 weight synthetic oil in this engine.
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 ???)
Last year I overheated my Civic, the coolant temperature according to my Scangauge was around 275F! (my fan only comes on if I turn on the AC and I was stuck in downtown Toronto traffic and stupidly forgot to turn on the AC to keep things running cooler) I shut off the engine and parked the car and went to a baseball game so it had a chance to fully cool off. When I restarted it, there were no ill effects. I changed the oil and the coolant right away. I was running Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy 0w20. It's things like this that give me full confidence to continue running a 20 weight synthetic oil in this engine.
Patman
Staff member
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)
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)
Originally Posted By: dima
Why be concerned about 0w16 oil.
It is just that close to 0-20 oil that proved to be good in a properly made motor.
Looks like with advance metallurgy and better metal milling techniques, tolerances are getting tight and 0w16 oil is what needed.
use with confidence.
I agree.
Why be concerned about 0w16 oil.
It is just that close to 0-20 oil that proved to be good in a properly made motor.
Looks like with advance metallurgy and better metal milling techniques, tolerances are getting tight and 0w16 oil is what needed.
use with confidence.
I agree.
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)
This may have been posted already, but this is a Service Bulletin for 2014-2018 Vetts concerning oil changes from dealers in Corvettes. Notice Mobil 1 15w50 for track use, but no mention of street use.
http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/tech...-only-1359.html
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)
This may have been posted already, but this is a Service Bulletin for 2014-2018 Vetts concerning oil changes from dealers in Corvettes. Notice Mobil 1 15w50 for track use, but no mention of street use.
http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/tech...-only-1359.html
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
