Amsoil 0w16 launched - Light & Strong

Patman

Staff member
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
22,022
Location
Guelph, Ontario
Originally Posted by loneryder
Why 16 and not 15 or 10? Where did they come up with 16?
I'm guessing they did it to avoid confusion with oils that have viscosities that begin with 10w or 15w.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
2,376
Location
Somewhere in time
Originally Posted by Bailes1992
Considering how close to a monograde this oil is, I'm very surprised by the 12% NOACK.
Ravenol claims 8.2% Noack on their website. But we all know that Noack, in and of itself, is a poor singular predictor of performance and is highly variable under the D5800 test conditions.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,623
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by parshisa
popcorn
Me too... Waiting for the HTHS thickie crowd to show up and claim the excessive wear a HTHS of 2.38 is going have on an engines longevity. Any minute now.... LOL
And you said in another thread that you were going to start using 30 wt ... seems like you just like to stir up as many "thick vs thin" threads as possible. whistle
 

StevieC

Thread starter
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
25,071
Location
ON, Canada eh?
No what I said is that I was considering a 30wt because the engine was originally spec'ed for a 30wt in the past and has remained virtually unchanged since they spec'ed the 20wt for the same engine and since spec'ing the 20wt they changed the manual to allow either a 30wt or 20wt to be used as stated by their wording. I also went on to state that this wasn't to turn it into a thick versus thin debate, just a "what's best for this engine" discussion. If it had only said 20wt then I wouldn't have raised the question and used the 20wt. If you recall I also raised in another thread that my Journey called for a 30wt previously and I had excellent success running a 20wt in it since that is what the oil cap called for. (Posted the UOA here). So I have no quibbles about 20wt's at all, just was asking in this specific application if the 30wt was preferred by the engine versus the 20 is all based on others experiences. I also explained that my dad's 2012 van ran 5w20 conventional 2/3rds of it's life and in the last 100K it has been running 5w30 conventional with no ill effects but I don't have anything to go buy other than that. There is a difference. wink
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 15, 2017
Messages
2,780
Location
San Rafael, CA
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by loneryder
Why 16 and not 15 or 10? Where did they come up with 16?
I'm guessing they did it to avoid confusion with oils that have viscosities that begin with 10w or 15w.
This is an interesting point. Several times have people bought 20w-50 instead of 0w-20 or 5w-20 because "it has 20 in it" I try to tell people they have the wrong thing before they pour 20w-50 into a new-ish car but most people don't care.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,623
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by StevieC
There is a difference. wink
You're straw maning again. You just like to start these kinds of threads to wait and see the thick vs thin comments come out (as you eluded to with other comments) ... then always throw in a "disclaimer" that it's not "meant to be that". Guess everyone has their own way of getting their kicks ... carry on. LOL
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Messages
2,707
Location
WY
Someone asked why I would purchase the Ravenol over the Amsoil seeing the higher price point of the Ravenol. I am in the camp that believes that PAO/ester is better than class lll in most regards. The Amsoil mentioned seems to be a Class lll based oil. I tend to err in overkill and am not saying the Amsoil wouldn't be a better value. It's my money, let me waste it as I see fit. Thankfully none of my rigs require this grade/specification. I am currently a Red Line user in all of my rigs but may switch to Ravenol when the changes are due. Equivalent price with manufacturers approvals.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
870
Location
California
I have used Ravenol 0W16. It would work beautifully in a hybrid. VS 0W20, Ravenol claims it provides better protection, and is a suitable replacement. I agree with Shannow, that this oil is preferrable to Japanese style high VI 0W20 oils. Check out the astounding 8.2 NOACK. Ravenol goes for highest quality base stock, and 700+ ppm organic moly. And.. it's GREEN in color ! (Made by elves) The price would be prohibitive for most, but the OCIs can be extended. JMO.
 

Patman

Staff member
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
22,022
Location
Guelph, Ontario
Originally Posted by Direct_Rejection
I have used Ravenol 0W16. It would work beautifully in a hybrid. VS 0W20, Ravenol claims it provides better protection, and is a suitable replacement. I agree with Shannow, that this oil is preferrable to Japanese style high VI 0W20 oils. Check out the astounding 8.2 NOACK. Ravenol goes for highest quality base stock, and 700+ ppm organic moly. And.. it's GREEN in color ! (Made by elves)
How do you know about the GC elves when you just registered on here? confused
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
8,085
Location
Michigan
Read between the lines in their marketing blurb: Yeah, 16-weight is too thin to adequately protect an engine.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
8,085
Location
Michigan
Originally Posted by bullwinkle
As long as the engine is designed with the correct tolerances. The HTHS isn't that much below the typical 2.7 that most 20 weights have. Not sure about track use, though!
I think it's kind of silly that it is formulated to protect against LSPI, as that is normally a problem associated with DI-Turbo engines, and as far as I know, no turbocharged engines specify 0w16.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,672
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by dogememe
Originally Posted by Patman
Originally Posted by loneryder
Why 16 and not 15 or 10? Where did they come up with 16?
I'm guessing they did it to avoid confusion with oils that have viscosities that begin with 10w or 15w.
This is an interesting point. Several times have people bought 20w-50 instead of 0w-20 or 5w-20 because "it has 20 in it" I try to tell people they have the wrong thing before they pour 20w-50 into a new-ish car but most people don't care.
Per the early papers, that's exactly it they wanted to steer away from the 5s and 10s and confusion. The 20, 30, 40, 50 were basically (and loosely) bsed on time to flow through a particular viscometer, and in the 20 range, as there are a lot less seconds than at 50, the band became ridiculously broad (20s never used to be ABLE to shear out of grade). When they introduced the sub 20 grades, they narrowed the 20 (now they drop out of grade), introduced the new grades, and allowed them to overlap in their KV100s (HTHS is where it's at...and no, I'm not going to take the OP's silly little pokes to start more arguments...it's unbecoming to deliver the jabs, which have no place in a product discussion, and would only lead to the inclusion of "scary" papers and science, which StevieC believes has no place on BITOG). Following is a chart demonstrating what I mentioned about the overlap in the new grades...all those with weak constitutions, and an overly developed fright response please look away...

2015 J300.jpg
 

Patman

Staff member
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
22,022
Location
Guelph, Ontario
Originally Posted by Direct_Rejection
Patman. LOL. Everyone knows about German Castrol. Yes, i have been lurking, and have a pretty good understanding of BITOG and motor oil.
I figured you might have been a long time lurker cheers
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
19,220
Location
Silicon Valley
Originally Posted by loneryder
Why 16 and not 15 or 10? Where did they come up with 16?
That way you won't confuse your customer into buying 15w40 or 10w30 by accident.
 
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
17,078
Location
N.H, U.S.A.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
There is a difference. wink
You're straw maning again. You just like to start these kinds of threads to wait and see the thick vs thin comments come out (as you eluded to with other comments) ... then always throw in a "disclaimer" that it's not "meant to be that". Guess everyone has their own way of getting their kicks ... carry on. LOL
I will give a REAL WORLD data point. NONE of our Japanese cars that ran and spec'd a 20 GRADE made it past 55K in good health. Mostly Subarus driven CONSERVATIVELY by my wife with a sprinkling of Honda driven HARD by the Author. My Nissan is doing well on majority synthetic 10w30. Its specs 5W30. What does this mean? It wasnt a FORD that runs well on 20 grade smile like my old 2001 Bullitt that Loved the stuff.
 
Last edited:
Top