Another 0w16 Post, but....

[EMPIRE]

that should be a interesting answer he will skate around with.

What's to skate around? And I had already answered prior to your post.

 

[ZeeOSix]

These conversations are always so strange to me. It comes down to using what makes you feel good if you don't want to go by manufacturers specs. Your car your choice.

You will never prove that 0w16 is inferior, or that your oil weight you choose is superior. So the entire point is moot.

There are test studies out there that shows less engine wear with a higher viscosity, all oils tested having the same formulation (AW/AF modifiers).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Agree. Only 0w20 I feel safe with is Redline with its 2.9 HTHs.

Yep ... it's all about HTHS and MOFT. Studies show that when the HTHS gets below around 2.6 cP ( mPa-s ) with really hot oil temps the wear really starts to increase on some engine components. Most xW-20 have HTHS around the 2.6 cSt mark. I want more HTHS and MOFT headroom for engine wear protection, therefore it's xW-30 for me with HTSH around 3.1~3.2 instead of 0w-20.

DEFENDER2.NET - View topic - High HTHS vs low HTHS

www.defender2.net

 

[OilReport99]

Yep ... it's all about HTHS and MOFT. Studies show that when the HTHS gets below around 2.6 cP ( mPa-s ) the wear really starts to increase on some engine components. Most xW-20 have HTHS around the 2.6 cSt mark. I want more HTHS and MOFT headroom for engine wear protection, therefore it's xW-30 for me with HTSH around 3.1~3.2.

DEFENDER2.NET - View topic - High HTHS vs low HTHS

www.defender2.net

Make it 3.5~3.8

 

[ZeeOSix]

I don't really care about the data sheets, that doesn't translate 100% into reality. Saying an oil performed better in your car because it's data sheet is better is just silly. What does more protection really mean? What percent? What's the actual difference in my engine? Everything said in these arguments is conjecture and anecdotal.

To clarify I'm neither for or against someone choosing a different oil grade for their car. They own it and can do whatever they please with it. But to be "sure" or "know" an oil is doing something better for your engine is a fallacy. Unless you could somehow do a controlled test with UOA's, but even that has a fudge factor.

UOAs would never tell you much unless you ran two identical cars side by side and did UOAs on both for a very long time while using different oils (being the only factor changed). At least controlled wear studies do give apples-to-apples wear results while just changing the oil viscosity during the testing.

 

[blingo]

That's much of why it's not all about HTHS and MOFT when the lower viscosity oil & engine as a package shifted the approach. Then there's little to be said about a switch from a working combo to some upgrade in one or two viscosity values but unknown downgrades at he same time.
Because studying different viscosities with similar formulations ain't necessarily reflecting embottled options with a contemporary or future 0W-16 car. 0W-16 already is to be prepared differently.

 

[ZeeOSix]

That's much of why it's not all about HTHS and MOFT when the lower viscosity oil & engine as a package shifted the approach. Then there's little to be said about a switch from a working combo to some upgrade in one or two viscosity values but unknown downgrades at he same time.
Because studying different viscosities with similar formulations ain't necessarily reflecting embottled options with a contemporary or future 0W-16 car. 0W-16 already is to be prepared differently.

I'd rather have added protection from a viscosity increase (film thickness, MOFT) then from some kind of fancy AW/AF formulation (film strength) that's only function is to help mitigate wear after metal-to-metal contact has occurred. Doesn't matter if the engine was "designed as a package" for super thin oils, a bump in viscosity will always give more wear protection headroom for all unknowns involved in reducing MOFT.

 

[blingo]

Well, the "designed as a package" primarily means we'd expect it to work. Therefore the question what switching from 0W-16 to 0W-20 might offer. If it didn't work, some nasty operations would become due for the manufacturer. And probably they'd have to uprate viscosity grade while essentially keeping the rest of the approach. This rest of approach they'd have to specify in this fictious nasty operation, but wouldn't necessarily be in the 0W-20 of today that just seems to seem promising. 0W-20 as just a grade ain't that much relief HTHS-wise, while it won't be exactly clear from looking at two bottles of choice, what resulted below the line. Or what the overall best would be with the best possible choice in each grade. Todays 0W-20 can be mollies, but hardly the end of the line. I'd hesitate to bet.

And if i were proven wrong I'd just rehash it all for 0W-12 -> 0W-16

 

[ZeeOSix]

Well the "designed as a package" primarily means we'd expect it to work. Therefore the question what switching from 0W-16 to 0W-20 might offer.

More HTHS and MOFT always gives more wear protection (headroom before metal-to-metal contact). xW-20 and maybe even xW-16 will work with benign driving, but outside of that not so much as even mentioned in some OMs to go up a viscosity grade under certain conditions, so even the manufacture knows the wear reductioin benifits of thicker oil in certain situations. I like headroom from the get-go in most things.

0W-20 as just a grade ain't that much relief HTHS-wise, while it won't be exactly clear from looking at two bottles of choice, what resulted below the line. Or what the overall best would be with the best possible choice in each grade. Todays 0W-20 can be mollies, but hardly the end of the line. I'd hesitate to bet.

That's when the oil manufactures' spec sheet if good info if they show HTHS. That's basically the first thing I look for.

And if i were proven wrong I'd just rehash it all for 0W-12 -> 0W-16

If approx 2.6 cP is where the wear jumps up on some components due to MOFT reduction, then xW-8 and xW-16 is going to be well below that 2.6 cP point where the viscosity factor is replaced by the AW/AF additive factor. I'll take the former to rely on.

 

[EMPIRE]

Well, the "designed as a package" primarily means we'd expect it to work. Therefore the question what switching from 0W-16 to 0W-20 might offer. If it didn't work, some nasty operations would become due for the manufacturer. And probably they'd have to uprate viscosity grade while essentially keeping the rest of the approach. This rest of approach they'd have to specify in this fictious nasty operation, but wouldn't necessarily be in the 0W-20 of today that just seems to seem promising. 0W-20 as just a grade ain't that much relief HTHS-wise, while it won't be exactly clear from looking at two bottles of choice, what resulted below the line. Or what the overall best would be with the best possible choice in each grade. Todays 0W-20 can be mollies, but hardly the end of the line. I'd hesitate to bet.

And if i were proven wrong I'd just rehash it all for 0W-12 -> 0W-16

Would then a 0w20 with a little moly additive then be "better" than the cots 0w16 in terms of HTHS/MOFT ?

 

[blingo]

No, most certainly not 0W-20 + moly-magics purple-green ultra. To mess with the combo that way you'd better have been the designer of the whole package. That's not what I meant.

(If switching to a 0W-20, it would be wise of course to happen to have the best possible product. Others will have to chime in on what the_best_0W-20_for_switchers would be.)

 

[EMPIRE]

(If switching to a 0W-20, it would be wise of course to happen to have the best possible product. Others will have to chime in on what the_best_0W-20_for_switchers would be.)

If both grades meet the service spec requirement (SN, SP, whatever) of the vehicle, then what diff would it make using any 0w20 where the "idiot-label" says 0w16.

 

[blingo]

Any grades that are just a no brainer in your car are a no brainer in your car. But the more you had a real topic of switching, the less I'd just see it as a no brainer. If there's not much of a topic – yes, don't overthink it. (Overthinking not being the same as überdenken, I learned over these threads.)

ZeeOSix, I'm aware of the 0W-4 not being in the next Corvette. But if I had a Corvette I might be more for not doing what's required than if I had a 0W-16 limo. Perhaps switch to a 10W-30 low-ash HDEO, perhaps experiment with some 5W-20, whatever, why not?

The limo too in the end might get some 0W-20. I can't say. All I can say is that it shouldn't be overthought without taking more of the concepts into account, that the younger grades seem to mean to me.

Good night, gentlemen.

 

[ZeeOSix]

ZeeOSix, I'm aware of the 0W-4 not being in the next Corvette. But if I had a Corvette I might be more for not doing what's required than if I had a 0W-16 limo.

Obviously 0W-40 in the C7 and C8 Vette is there for a reason, and the engineers know that thicker oil protects better with more HTHS and MOFT headroom. I suppose if a Corvette was driven around like Grandma in her Corola then 0W-20 and maybe even 0W-16 would be fine for going to the grocery store.

 

[blingo]

And still 0W-40 somehow shall be due. I see. Let me just abjure. I'm with you for the Toyota upgrade routine again now. Forgive the distraction, please, and see it all in the HTHSV and MOFT now and forever. Let's spread the word. The last shall be first. The thinner the thicker.

 

[EMPIRE]

Gotta luv this quote

Although thinner oils with less antiwear additive outperform more robust products in the 96-hour fuel economy test, it is not clear that such products save fuel over the useful life of the engine.

Motor Oils - Fuel Economy vs. Wear

Conventional wisdom states that engine oils that increase fuel economy allow less friction and prolong engine life. The purpose of this article is to challenge conventional wisdom, particula…

www.machinerylubrication.com

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Old Machine Lubrication article from July 2003, but still.

"To determine if SAE 5W-20 oils provide the same level of protection as SAE 5W-30 oils, Dagenham Motors in
England, one of the largest Ford dealers in Europe, was consulted. SAE 5W-30 is required for warranty purposes in
England, and SAE 5W-20 is not even available. If SAE 5W-20 were better for both fuel economy and wear, why
would Ford not recommend it for its same engines in Europe?"

Viscosity will always be key for increased HTHS viscosity and MOFT as the first line of defense to mitigate wear.

 

[4WD]

Everything is fine, BITOG.
[/QUOTE]
Seems it was built to use that … and 3 of mine built for 20’s …
All the endless “better protection” rhetoric on this site gives rise to this question: How does that change my destiny ?
What I’m out to protect can vary … some engines might have chain issues, others cam issues, some need HTHS …
But many engines employ electronic over hydraulic systems … and a high quality 0w20 protects these finicky components
People just want to “be right” over thick and thin sagas … and others don’t have to accept that they are …

 

[ZeeOSix]

But many engines employ electronic over hydraulic systems … and a high quality 0w20 protects these finicky components

Examples?

 

[haggler]

Yep ... it's all about HTHS and MOFT. Studies show that when the HTHS gets below around 2.6 cP ( mPa-s ) with really hot oil temps the wear really starts to increase on some engine components. Most xW-20 have HTHS around the 2.6 cSt mark. I want more HTHS and MOFT headroom for engine wear protection, therefore it's xW-30 for me with HTSH around 3.1~3.2 instead of 0w-20.

DEFENDER2.NET - View topic - High HTHS vs low HTHS

www.defender2.net

View attachment 26652

Great data. Looking at the chart it makes sense why OEMs went to 0w20, but I think some OEMs didnt factor in fuel dilution and the way people drive. To Toyota's credit, they do implement dual injection, so likely the 0w16 oil doesn't have the same problems. Also if you look at the cars that actually use 0w16, they spend most of their time at low RPM. The transmission in my gf 2018 camry always hunts for the lowest gear. Now for her driving style it rarely matters. Nowadays most cars are either hybrid or turbo so they're not revving up like the old days for power, but even so 0w20 for DI or 0w16 for MPFI looks satisfactory. For my MX-5, im hitting 7500 RPM often but I try not to short trip at all with M1 EP 0w20 in the sump. Even so, it smells like gas. Will so switch to 5w30 next OCI.