5w5
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
5W-5 and 0W-0? HOLY COW!
That sounds mighty interesting...from most of the article it seems that industry professionals are only debating how to get it done, not whether or not it should be done. Only the Valvoline guy expressed concern about holding off on making it happen.
I would guess that no currently designed engine could use such thin oil.
I would guess that no currently designed engine could use such thin oil.
Red Line sells a 5 weight and a 2 weight oil for racers.
The 5 weight is also called a 0w5 and Red Line does not recommend it for oil temps over 160F which is 71C. Flash point is 210C or 410F. NOACK is 12%.
The 2 weight is not recommended for oil temps over 150F which is 65.6C. Flash point is 160C or 320F. NOACK is a whopping 65%
I'd like to add that the 10 weight which is also called a 0w10 does not have these kinds of restrictions and features a flash point of 215C or 420F and a NOACK of only 6%
The 5 weight is also called a 0w5 and Red Line does not recommend it for oil temps over 160F which is 71C. Flash point is 210C or 410F. NOACK is 12%.
The 2 weight is not recommended for oil temps over 150F which is 65.6C. Flash point is 160C or 320F. NOACK is a whopping 65%
I'd like to add that the 10 weight which is also called a 0w10 does not have these kinds of restrictions and features a flash point of 215C or 420F and a NOACK of only 6%
Means nothing.
I don't think there is a need for this, yet.
I think more work should go into making current 5W-20 and 0W-20 oil thinner at 100C.
'Most' 20-weight oil on the market now are at the 'upper end of the viscosity limit - most are 8.0cst to 9.1 cst.
But the 20-weight range goes from 5.6cst to 9.2 cst - why not concentrate on making quality 20-weight that are between 6 and 7.5 cst @100C? Keep the HT/HS at 2.6, and just concentrate on making them thinner at operating temps. That would give you some FE gains, without re-writing the whole spectrum.
I think more work should go into making current 5W-20 and 0W-20 oil thinner at 100C.
'Most' 20-weight oil on the market now are at the 'upper end of the viscosity limit - most are 8.0cst to 9.1 cst.
But the 20-weight range goes from 5.6cst to 9.2 cst - why not concentrate on making quality 20-weight that are between 6 and 7.5 cst @100C? Keep the HT/HS at 2.6, and just concentrate on making them thinner at operating temps. That would give you some FE gains, without re-writing the whole spectrum.
I don’t how they can consider 5W-5 and 0W-0 when people still think 0W-20 and 0w30 motor oils are too thin.
I even read that Ford is talking about scaling back their across the board 5W-20 recommendation and going to 0w30 in upcoming turbo charged applications.
I even read that Ford is talking about scaling back their across the board 5W-20 recommendation and going to 0w30 in upcoming turbo charged applications.
Originally Posted By: buster
5w5 lol
Yeah, wouldn't that be the same as a straight 5 weight?
5w5 lol
Yeah, wouldn't that be the same as a straight 5 weight?
Originally Posted By: CompSyn
I don’t how they can consider 5W-5 and 0W-0 when people still think 0W-20 and 0w30 motor oils are too thin.
I even read that Ford is talking about scaling back their across the board 5W-20 recommendation and going to 0w30 in upcoming turbo charged applications.
CAFE superiority!
I don’t how they can consider 5W-5 and 0W-0 when people still think 0W-20 and 0w30 motor oils are too thin.
I even read that Ford is talking about scaling back their across the board 5W-20 recommendation and going to 0w30 in upcoming turbo charged applications.
CAFE superiority!
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I don't think there is a need for this, yet.
I think more work should go into making current 5W-20 and 0W-20 oil thinner at 100C.
'Most' 20-weight oil on the market now are at the 'upper end of the viscosity limit - most are 8.0cst to 9.1 cst.
But the 20-weight range goes from 5.6cst to 9.2 cst - why not concentrate on making quality 20-weight that are between 6 and 7.5 cst @100C? Keep the HT/HS at 2.6, and just concentrate on making them thinner at operating temps. That would give you some FE gains, without re-writing the whole spectrum.
You don't understand the relationship between kinematic viscosity and HTHS vis'. If oils have the same HTHS vis' then their operational viscosity at 100C will be the same regardless of what there various KV100 spec's might be.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/2004057/
I don't think there is a need for this, yet.
I think more work should go into making current 5W-20 and 0W-20 oil thinner at 100C.
'Most' 20-weight oil on the market now are at the 'upper end of the viscosity limit - most are 8.0cst to 9.1 cst.
But the 20-weight range goes from 5.6cst to 9.2 cst - why not concentrate on making quality 20-weight that are between 6 and 7.5 cst @100C? Keep the HT/HS at 2.6, and just concentrate on making them thinner at operating temps. That would give you some FE gains, without re-writing the whole spectrum.
You don't understand the relationship between kinematic viscosity and HTHS vis'. If oils have the same HTHS vis' then their operational viscosity at 100C will be the same regardless of what there various KV100 spec's might be.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/posts/2004057/
No, it would have a KV of 5 (?) and have a Resistance to Flow rating of 5 as well. a Straight-5 would nave no Resistance to Flow rating.
0W-10 is available to you, Dr. A.E. Hass, who puts 0W-20 in a 7.4L Engine or $250,000+ car or Expedition...
0W-10 is available to you, Dr. A.E. Hass, who puts 0W-20 in a 7.4L Engine or $250,000+ car or Expedition...
- Status
