https://www.infineuminsight.com/art...um=email&utm_source=Infineum+Insight
Interesting. Probably old news here though, sorry if I'm late .
Interesting. Probably old news here though, sorry if I'm late .
0w16 t0 0w8
- Thread starter double vanos
- Start date
- Status
Interesting article. I'm certainly no chemist, and I'm slowly learning about motor oils by joining this site, but, I wonder how low is low enough? Can engines that are built to strict tolerances, plus, have all the EPA crap on them, be able to function properly with these lower viscosity oils? And, last just as long?
Just food for thought from a somebody who's still learning.
Thanks for the article, DV!
Just food for thought from a somebody who's still learning.
Thanks for the article, DV!
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Puckrobber
Interesting article. I'm certainly no chemist, and I'm slowly learning about motor oils by joining this site, but, I wonder how low is low enough? Can engines that are built to strict tolerances, plus, have all the EPA crap on them, be able to function properly with these lower viscosity oils? And, last just as long?
Just food for thought from a somebody who's still learning.
Thanks for the article, DV!
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
Interesting article. I'm certainly no chemist, and I'm slowly learning about motor oils by joining this site, but, I wonder how low is low enough? Can engines that are built to strict tolerances, plus, have all the EPA crap on them, be able to function properly with these lower viscosity oils? And, last just as long?
Just food for thought from a somebody who's still learning.
Thanks for the article, DV!
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
Thanks for posting, hadn't read that yet.
Great information
One thing that is great about them making engines capable of 0w16 and 0w8 is they are really reducing friction between components and designing them to run on barely any oil film separation with a lower HTHS requirement.
Originally Posted by Kjmack
Originally Posted by Puckrobber
Interesting article. I'm certainly no chemist, and I'm slowly learning about motor oils by joining this site, but, I wonder how low is low enough? Can engines that are built to strict tolerances, plus, have all the EPA crap on them, be able to function properly with these lower viscosity oils? And, last just as long?
Just food for thought from a somebody who's still learning.
Thanks for the article, DV!
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
That's what I was thinking, too. All of this research, hard work, and sweating the small stuff, for just a 0.5-1.0% gain in fuel economy? Seems to me like a waste of time, labor & oil.
Originally Posted by Puckrobber
Interesting article. I'm certainly no chemist, and I'm slowly learning about motor oils by joining this site, but, I wonder how low is low enough? Can engines that are built to strict tolerances, plus, have all the EPA crap on them, be able to function properly with these lower viscosity oils? And, last just as long?
Just food for thought from a somebody who's still learning.
Thanks for the article, DV!
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
That's what I was thinking, too. All of this research, hard work, and sweating the small stuff, for just a 0.5-1.0% gain in fuel economy? Seems to me like a waste of time, labor & oil.
Same thinking here!
Originally Posted by Puckrobber
That's what I was thinking, too. All of this research, hard work, and sweating the small stuff, for just a 0.5-1.0% gain in fuel economy? Seems to me like a waste of time, labor & oil.
And it was back when 20 grades first popped up ...
Plus, you are talking about Japan, LEADING THE WAY to lower viscosity, in a country that seriously discourages keeping a car for more than 5 years ...
That's what I was thinking, too. All of this research, hard work, and sweating the small stuff, for just a 0.5-1.0% gain in fuel economy? Seems to me like a waste of time, labor & oil.
And it was back when 20 grades first popped up ...
Plus, you are talking about Japan, LEADING THE WAY to lower viscosity, in a country that seriously discourages keeping a car for more than 5 years ...
According to this link (https://www.swri.org/sites/default/files/sequence-ivb-test.pdf, it is 200 hours long--which is not unheard for an OCI (200 x 50 MPH is 10,000 miles), but still I'd like to know if this accurately reflects what would go on in 200 hours of driving--something tells me that that's not the case. Its probably much more rigorous than the typical engine sees, like the NOACK test to determine volatility.
200 hrs in city traffic could be less than 3K miles...
The USA uses 143 Billion gallons of gasoline annually.
If the entire fleet was converted to 0W-8/16 to save that 1%, it wold be a saving of 1.43 billions of gasoline ..... a year.
Or about 100,000 tanker trucks of gasoline a year savings.
It may take 25 years to convert the whole fleet, but you have to start somewhere, sometime.
If the entire fleet was converted to 0W-8/16 to save that 1%, it wold be a saving of 1.43 billions of gasoline ..... a year.
Or about 100,000 tanker trucks of gasoline a year savings.
It may take 25 years to convert the whole fleet, but you have to start somewhere, sometime.
Originally Posted by Danno
The USA uses 143 Billion gallons of gasoline annually.
If the entire fleet was converted to 0W-8/16 to save that 1%, it wold be a saving of 1.43 billions of gasoline ..... a year.
Or about 100,000 tanker trucks of gasoline a year savings.
It may take 25 years to convert the whole fleet, but you have to start somewhere, sometime.
Ahh yeah... agenda driven nonsense... By a group of watermelons...
I'm not against new oil research and technology... I believe in certain instances this ultra thin oil will work out very well... In others... It would be ill advisable.
The USA uses 143 Billion gallons of gasoline annually.
If the entire fleet was converted to 0W-8/16 to save that 1%, it wold be a saving of 1.43 billions of gasoline ..... a year.
Or about 100,000 tanker trucks of gasoline a year savings.
It may take 25 years to convert the whole fleet, but you have to start somewhere, sometime.
Ahh yeah... agenda driven nonsense... By a group of watermelons...
I'm not against new oil research and technology... I believe in certain instances this ultra thin oil will work out very well... In others... It would be ill advisable.
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by Danno
The USA uses 143 Billion gallons of gasoline annually.
If the entire fleet was converted to 0W-8/16 to save that 1%, it wold be a saving of 1.43 billions of gasoline ..... a year.
Or about 100,000 tanker trucks of gasoline a year savings.
It may take 25 years to convert the whole fleet, but you have to start somewhere, sometime.
Ahh yeah... agenda driven nonsense... By a group of watermelons...
I'm not against new oil research and technology... I believe in certain instances this ultra thin oil will work out very well... In others... It would be ill advisable.
No one is saying the fleet switches over today.
But lower viscosity oils do have better fuel economy results - in general.
And its a "press the easy button" once implemented.
Originally Posted by Danno
The USA uses 143 Billion gallons of gasoline annually.
If the entire fleet was converted to 0W-8/16 to save that 1%, it wold be a saving of 1.43 billions of gasoline ..... a year.
Or about 100,000 tanker trucks of gasoline a year savings.
It may take 25 years to convert the whole fleet, but you have to start somewhere, sometime.
Ahh yeah... agenda driven nonsense... By a group of watermelons...
I'm not against new oil research and technology... I believe in certain instances this ultra thin oil will work out very well... In others... It would be ill advisable.
No one is saying the fleet switches over today.
But lower viscosity oils do have better fuel economy results - in general.
And its a "press the easy button" once implemented.
Originally Posted by Kjmack
Originally Posted by Puckrobber
Interesting article. I'm certainly no chemist, and I'm slowly learning about motor oils by joining this site, but, I wonder how low is low enough? Can engines that are built to strict tolerances, plus, have all the EPA crap on them, be able to function properly with these lower viscosity oils? And, last just as long?
Just food for thought from a somebody who's still learning.
Thanks for the article, DV!
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
You mean .1% savings.
Originally Posted by Puckrobber
Interesting article. I'm certainly no chemist, and I'm slowly learning about motor oils by joining this site, but, I wonder how low is low enough? Can engines that are built to strict tolerances, plus, have all the EPA crap on them, be able to function properly with these lower viscosity oils? And, last just as long?
Just food for thought from a somebody who's still learning.
Thanks for the article, DV!
I see the test allows for 400 ppm for iron , over 4x as much as current allowable rate . No thanks , all for 1% fuel savings .👎
You mean .1% savings.
Originally Posted by PimTac
Another shark meat thread.
+1
Another shark meat thread.
+1
Originally Posted by StevieC
One thing that is great about them making engines capable of 0w16 and 0w8 is they are really reducing friction between components and designing them to run on barely any oil film separation with a lower HTHS requirement.
I'm sure you know by now after all these threads discussing the relationship between oil viscosity and minimum oil film thickness (MOFT), that "barely any film separation" (ie, very small MOFT) means these super thin oils are going to be relying heavily on anti-wear additives because there will be way more meta-to-metal contact as they keep lowering the HTHS and MOFT.
They alos seem to be changing the wear limit requirements in the oil testing to get around this fact. What's happening is they are going for 0.5~1.0% improvement in fuel mileage at the expense of more engine wear and shorter engine life. Cars are becoming more an more disposable as time goes on.
One thing that is great about them making engines capable of 0w16 and 0w8 is they are really reducing friction between components and designing them to run on barely any oil film separation with a lower HTHS requirement.
I'm sure you know by now after all these threads discussing the relationship between oil viscosity and minimum oil film thickness (MOFT), that "barely any film separation" (ie, very small MOFT) means these super thin oils are going to be relying heavily on anti-wear additives because there will be way more meta-to-metal contact as they keep lowering the HTHS and MOFT.
They alos seem to be changing the wear limit requirements in the oil testing to get around this fact. What's happening is they are going for 0.5~1.0% improvement in fuel mileage at the expense of more engine wear and shorter engine life. Cars are becoming more an more disposable as time goes on.
- Status
Similar threads
