16 wt coming very soon Honda 1st
- Thread starter oilboy123
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: skyship
I can assure you that the thin oil game is all about fuel economy, not engine life. The main manufacturers are making every effort to reduce weight and this also effects engine and gearbox design. Changing to a modern high tech German ZF power steering system even saves a few percent for a bus or truck and the latest ZF auto box is 6% more efficient than the best manual box and can change gears faster than a formula 1 race driver.
The real bad news is that most of the low to mid end car manufactuers are involved in a serious price war and are cutting component costs as fast as they can and that means back speccing cheaper bearings in particular and when combined with the use of cheap part dino 5/20 oils by some dealers the results will be increased bearing wear, although the serious testing done on new bearings will make sure they don't fail too often within the extended warranty. This back speccing is serious because it means that the newer cars won't last as long as cars that are more than about 5 years old, which was about the time the big players started changing bearing specs in a much more agressive manner. This silly bearings game is combining with the thin oil game in more basic cars and will lead to the era of a recyled post extended warranty vehicles.
You said that your profession was not that of a cabbie did you falsify a statement? If so it is not a big deal but please do not go a tangent on a topic that you do not have a fact on but a lot of false conjecture. If you have knowledge of what you say is true, please provide us with your source and enlighten us. I for one will appreciate it.
I can assure you that the thin oil game is all about fuel economy, not engine life. The main manufacturers are making every effort to reduce weight and this also effects engine and gearbox design. Changing to a modern high tech German ZF power steering system even saves a few percent for a bus or truck and the latest ZF auto box is 6% more efficient than the best manual box and can change gears faster than a formula 1 race driver.
The real bad news is that most of the low to mid end car manufactuers are involved in a serious price war and are cutting component costs as fast as they can and that means back speccing cheaper bearings in particular and when combined with the use of cheap part dino 5/20 oils by some dealers the results will be increased bearing wear, although the serious testing done on new bearings will make sure they don't fail too often within the extended warranty. This back speccing is serious because it means that the newer cars won't last as long as cars that are more than about 5 years old, which was about the time the big players started changing bearing specs in a much more agressive manner. This silly bearings game is combining with the thin oil game in more basic cars and will lead to the era of a recyled post extended warranty vehicles.
You said that your profession was not that of a cabbie did you falsify a statement? If so it is not a big deal but please do not go a tangent on a topic that you do not have a fact on but a lot of false conjecture. If you have knowledge of what you say is true, please provide us with your source and enlighten us. I for one will appreciate it.
I wonder how many cars that were originally spec'd for 5W30, then without any changes to the engine were back spec'd to 5W20, will be back spec'd again to a 16 grade oil? LOL They have to create enough of a market for the product in order for it to sell, don't they?
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I wonder how many cars that were originally spec'd for 5W30, then without any changes to the engine were back spec'd to 5W20, will be back spec'd again to a 16 grade oil? LOL They have to create enough of a market for the product in order for it to sell, don't they?
Interesting theory. GM seems to be the exception to this because they have only used 5w-20 on new engines and have not bothered with it on bigger motors. They may be the one exception to the rule. I would say that is entirely possible if you look at Toyota and Ford.
I wonder how many cars that were originally spec'd for 5W30, then without any changes to the engine were back spec'd to 5W20, will be back spec'd again to a 16 grade oil? LOL They have to create enough of a market for the product in order for it to sell, don't they?
Interesting theory. GM seems to be the exception to this because they have only used 5w-20 on new engines and have not bothered with it on bigger motors. They may be the one exception to the rule. I would say that is entirely possible if you look at Toyota and Ford.
The new for 2013, family of GM truck engines featuring a 4.3 V6 and 5.3 & 6.0 V8s are specced to run on 0-20. A first for GM. The engines also have a variable output oil pump.
Link courtesy of a BITOG poster about a week or two ago
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f53/active-fuel-management-50389/
Link courtesy of a BITOG poster about a week or two ago
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f53/active-fuel-management-50389/
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
New grade possibility certain to make people scratch their heads:
15W-16
We had 20W-20 and no one cared.
New grade possibility certain to make people scratch their heads:
15W-16
We had 20W-20 and no one cared.
Originally Posted By: Torrid
I remember seeing that. They are making major changes for them. I very much doubt they are going to back spec LSX motors. I haven't heard what the new Corvette LT1 is going to run.
Agreed, I doubt they'll do much if any back spec'ing at all.
I remember seeing that. They are making major changes for them. I very much doubt they are going to back spec LSX motors. I haven't heard what the new Corvette LT1 is going to run.
Agreed, I doubt they'll do much if any back spec'ing at all.
If it's all MPG related then I have a puzzle to solve.
I got all time high mileage across multiple tanks with PYB10w30 vs ANY of the 5w20's I have run. Have used Valvoline, RP, M1, PU all in 5w20 but the PYB10w30 outperformed them all.
Splain it Lucy.....
I got all time high mileage across multiple tanks with PYB10w30 vs ANY of the 5w20's I have run. Have used Valvoline, RP, M1, PU all in 5w20 but the PYB10w30 outperformed them all.
Splain it Lucy.....
Originally Posted By: Sonataman
If it's all MPG related then I have a puzzle to solve.
I got all time high mileage across multiple tanks with PYB10w30 vs ANY of the 5w20's I have run. Have used Valvoline, RP, M1, PU all in 5w20 but the PYB10w30 outperformed them all.
Splain it Lucy.....
MPG is the most subjective "test" we can choose to participate in.
If it's all MPG related then I have a puzzle to solve.
I got all time high mileage across multiple tanks with PYB10w30 vs ANY of the 5w20's I have run. Have used Valvoline, RP, M1, PU all in 5w20 but the PYB10w30 outperformed them all.
Splain it Lucy.....
MPG is the most subjective "test" we can choose to participate in.
Most people claiming MPG benefits or losses are measuring in the worst ways scientifically possible and completely biasing their results. The reality is in highly controlled environments thinner oils can benefit mileage. I have yet to see any evidence that manufacturers are intentionally sacrificing engine life to do so, but we already have Shannow and skyship in here to shout that they are without actually proving it (other then saying 'I know so').
In order to make the "energy conserving" claim, the oils have to demonstrate that in the lab, they use x% fewer fuel than the "reference" fuel...in the lab, and on the test bench.
YMMV
Here's the early days of my Nissan. Factory 10W-30, very heavy 15W-40 dino, Mobil 1 0W-40, Castrol 0W-40 (was 12.9cst, I expected a lot from it, didn't get it), then GrIII Magntec SP 5W-40.
YMMV
Here's the early days of my Nissan. Factory 10W-30, very heavy 15W-40 dino, Mobil 1 0W-40, Castrol 0W-40 (was 12.9cst, I expected a lot from it, didn't get it), then GrIII Magntec SP 5W-40.
Originally Posted By: Torrid
I remember seeing that. They are making major changes for them. I very much doubt they are going to back spec LSX motors. I haven't heard what the new Corvette LT1 is going to run.
Back spec the older LSx engines to a 20 grade? Would that be the same conservative GM that gave us the Chevy small block and 700R4? Would that be the company that gave us the Chevy Suburban, the Coupe deVille, Allison transmissions, and Detroit Diesel? Would it be the same company that built my Fiero (which gets me back and forth to work even after being submerged in seawater for two freaking days) and is a car built so tough that you can stop on railroad tracks, get hit by a train at speed, and reasonably expect to walk away? Are we talking about the GM that still puts push rods in the engine of it's flagship sports car? Somehow I think they'll say that 5w-30 is still appropriate for the older engines. Not exactly a bunch of Indiana Joneses, that lot.
Edit:
They like to know, for sure, 100%, that something works as reliably as anyone can possibly expect for a very long time. Only then, when it's well proven to be that rock solid, only then are they ready to suddenly abandon it and do something else that's entirely different. When that time comes, the old units can just keep on keeping on.
I remember seeing that. They are making major changes for them. I very much doubt they are going to back spec LSX motors. I haven't heard what the new Corvette LT1 is going to run.
Back spec the older LSx engines to a 20 grade? Would that be the same conservative GM that gave us the Chevy small block and 700R4? Would that be the company that gave us the Chevy Suburban, the Coupe deVille, Allison transmissions, and Detroit Diesel? Would it be the same company that built my Fiero (which gets me back and forth to work even after being submerged in seawater for two freaking days) and is a car built so tough that you can stop on railroad tracks, get hit by a train at speed, and reasonably expect to walk away? Are we talking about the GM that still puts push rods in the engine of it's flagship sports car? Somehow I think they'll say that 5w-30 is still appropriate for the older engines. Not exactly a bunch of Indiana Joneses, that lot.
Edit:
They like to know, for sure, 100%, that something works as reliably as anyone can possibly expect for a very long time. Only then, when it's well proven to be that rock solid, only then are they ready to suddenly abandon it and do something else that's entirely different. When that time comes, the old units can just keep on keeping on.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Prove it skyship.
I've posted to enough links before and you can easily do your own research using Google, just look up who is supplying the bearings.
I've spent many years investigating engine failures (Mostly diesels) and they always did back spec some parts, but they are doing it on much bigger scale and for almost every expensive part that lasts too long in extended warranty terms, they will even accept some failures in warranty if they don't prove too expensive.
When you look at bearing failures in particular it is always a combination of different factors and the top combination for engines or boxes is a back specced Chinese bearing, thinner oil than the original design spec, severe service issues (Mostly load or temperature related) and cheap oils or fluids used either by the dealer or owner. The crazy thing is that the engine specs of some cars in bearings terms have changed by nearly half in only a few years from the initial production run, so the problem is getting worse not better, even though the marketing and oil folks put the opposite spin on things. The CAFE game in reality is only part of the problem, although it does effect VW in particular, who didn't use the best bearings in the first place.
Some car companies are staying above the light oil and back speccing game, but in reality very few, with the rest the game they are playing will lead to disposable cars, that will last about 200K miles max then everything will fail on the same day if the R&D geeks have got their sums right.
Prove it skyship.
I've posted to enough links before and you can easily do your own research using Google, just look up who is supplying the bearings.
I've spent many years investigating engine failures (Mostly diesels) and they always did back spec some parts, but they are doing it on much bigger scale and for almost every expensive part that lasts too long in extended warranty terms, they will even accept some failures in warranty if they don't prove too expensive.
When you look at bearing failures in particular it is always a combination of different factors and the top combination for engines or boxes is a back specced Chinese bearing, thinner oil than the original design spec, severe service issues (Mostly load or temperature related) and cheap oils or fluids used either by the dealer or owner. The crazy thing is that the engine specs of some cars in bearings terms have changed by nearly half in only a few years from the initial production run, so the problem is getting worse not better, even though the marketing and oil folks put the opposite spin on things. The CAFE game in reality is only part of the problem, although it does effect VW in particular, who didn't use the best bearings in the first place.
Some car companies are staying above the light oil and back speccing game, but in reality very few, with the rest the game they are playing will lead to disposable cars, that will last about 200K miles max then everything will fail on the same day if the R&D geeks have got their sums right.
In other words "I'm right, you do your research."
Not buying it. Prove it skyship.
Not buying it. Prove it skyship.
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: oilboy123
The new grade’s kinematic viscosity limits
were set at 6.1 mm2/s minimum to
s maximum, at 100 degrees C.
Its minimum high-temperature high-shear
rate viscosity is 2.3 mPa•sec at 150 C.
...the updated SAE J300 standard will require tweaking
the kinematic viscosity limit at 100 C
for SAE 20 engine oils. The current minimum
KV100 limit for SAE xW-20 oils is
5.6 mm2/s, but that will rise to 6.9
mm2/s when the revised standard is published
in April.
Covitch said API, ACEA and others who
set engine oil specifications have the
option of retaining the current 5.6 mm2/s
minimum KV100 for stay-in-grade viscosity
if they wish, but the new-oil minimum
for SAE xW-20 will be 6.9 mm2/s as of
April 2013.
The significant difference in the SAE 16 grade is the min HTHS of 2.3 versus the SAE 20 min HTHS of 2.6. The KV specs that SAE has hung on it are silly:
Old 20 was 5.6 to 9.3 cSt
New 16 is 6.1 to 8.2
New 20 is 6.9 to 9.3, but can sometimes be 5.6 to 9.3.
So if you have an oil with KV100 of 7.7 and an HTHS of 2.7, is it a 16 or 20? It meets both specs, and can still be called a 16 because SAE does not call out a maximum HTHS for a grade.
If that table just above is correct, it will be total confusion in the 16 and 20 grade camps, because the EU folks will probably stick with the old 20 group whilst the US changes to the new groups, that will result in some oils being sold under 2 different labels. Seems to be a repeat of the argument over the definition of the term fully synthetic, they can't even agree over that term within the EU, as the UK followed the US definition downgrade. This could lead to an oil being advertised as an 0/16 full synthetic in the US and as an 0/20 HC synthetic technology in Germany, assuming Cowitch is correct and the ACEA folks stick to the old figures as I suspect they will. Next thing the engine folks will have to change the oil fill caps!!
Originally Posted By: oilboy123
The new grade’s kinematic viscosity limits
were set at 6.1 mm2/s minimum to
s maximum, at 100 degrees C.
Its minimum high-temperature high-shear
rate viscosity is 2.3 mPa•sec at 150 C.
...the updated SAE J300 standard will require tweaking
the kinematic viscosity limit at 100 C
for SAE 20 engine oils. The current minimum
KV100 limit for SAE xW-20 oils is
5.6 mm2/s, but that will rise to 6.9
mm2/s when the revised standard is published
in April.
Covitch said API, ACEA and others who
set engine oil specifications have the
option of retaining the current 5.6 mm2/s
minimum KV100 for stay-in-grade viscosity
if they wish, but the new-oil minimum
for SAE xW-20 will be 6.9 mm2/s as of
April 2013.
The significant difference in the SAE 16 grade is the min HTHS of 2.3 versus the SAE 20 min HTHS of 2.6. The KV specs that SAE has hung on it are silly:
Old 20 was 5.6 to 9.3 cSt
New 16 is 6.1 to 8.2
New 20 is 6.9 to 9.3, but can sometimes be 5.6 to 9.3.
So if you have an oil with KV100 of 7.7 and an HTHS of 2.7, is it a 16 or 20? It meets both specs, and can still be called a 16 because SAE does not call out a maximum HTHS for a grade.
If that table just above is correct, it will be total confusion in the 16 and 20 grade camps, because the EU folks will probably stick with the old 20 group whilst the US changes to the new groups, that will result in some oils being sold under 2 different labels. Seems to be a repeat of the argument over the definition of the term fully synthetic, they can't even agree over that term within the EU, as the UK followed the US definition downgrade. This could lead to an oil being advertised as an 0/16 full synthetic in the US and as an 0/20 HC synthetic technology in Germany, assuming Cowitch is correct and the ACEA folks stick to the old figures as I suspect they will. Next thing the engine folks will have to change the oil fill caps!!
Last edited:
Interesting graph, what caused the two bounces at the start of the M1 0/40 use??
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
In other words "I'm right, you do your research."
Not buying it. Prove it skyship.
Honda's mo9tivation is clear in the first post of this thread
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2858649&page=1
You could always pay attention, or use the search function that you advocate others to do.
In other words "I'm right, you do your research."
Not buying it. Prove it skyship.
Honda's mo9tivation is clear in the first post of this thread
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2858649&page=1
You could always pay attention, or use the search function that you advocate others to do.
Originally Posted By: zerosoma
It's made of troll snot.
So that's why Skyship doesn't like it? He's afraid his snot reserves will be taken from him if this becomes popular.
It's okay, buddy, we won't mine your nasals.
It's made of troll snot.
So that's why Skyship doesn't like it? He's afraid his snot reserves will be taken from him if this becomes popular.
It's okay, buddy, we won't mine your nasals.
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Prove it skyship.
Seriously? He finally comes up with a well thought-out and useful post you're gonna call him out on it?
Prove it skyship.
Seriously? He finally comes up with a well thought-out and useful post you're gonna call him out on it?
- Status
Similar threads
