Fascinating study on Ravenol 0w16 vs 5w30 in fleet of similar autos

[Bryanccfshr]

Not exactly apples to apples comparison.
Ravenol formulation better? Apparently for this use. Is the viscosity superior? Can't determine, the formulation of the other oil was much different. The c3 oil is a low saps product so the tim decline does not surprise.
The multiple stops and starts indicates many short trips a day.
Wouldmlike to see a test with GDI application and not a sweetheart toyota with port injection.

 

[PimTac]

I think the apples to oranges concept here is to show how 0w16 can perform as well or better than the popular 5w30 and provide further benefits in fuel economy.

These Aygo engines are 1.0 liter 3 bangers. I'm sure they get a workout.

 

[IndyFan]

Just looking at the stats on that oil....Wow, that's the lowest pour point I've seen of any 0w20....-81.4 degrees farenheit! It also has one of the highest flash point, too, at 464 degrees F! Only M1 AP is higher at 467.6. Impressive!

However the test was tilted to favor the Ravenol, if at all, I have always thought the thickies around here should concede that a high quality 0w20 would provide better protection than an average 5w30, but they seem to avoid even that concession.

I'd love to see them run their oil in the same test against a high volume, popular brand 0w20 like PP, Valvoline, M1, or Castrol.

Is Ravenol considered to be one of the best out there, or parallel to a mass market synthetic?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by wemay
It's a 5w30 C3 (HTHS 3.5) oil their comparing it to. Not a run of the mill SN.

What was the starting TBN of both oils, I'd wonder. After the bugs got worked out in the SM rollout, TBN levels started to get high again, and generally speaking, an SN/GF-5 lube would have higher starting TBN than a C3. Under ideal circumstances, they should be testing an SN/GF-5 versus another SN/GF-5. If they want a challenge, compare it to a 5w-30 that's A5/B5, or E7, E9, or, worse yet, A3/B4.

 

[dbias]

I run the Ravenol SSL 0W-40 in the Audi and it also has some really great numbers HTHS 3.7, NOACK 8.5, VI 182 and the right formal factory approvals Porsche A40 VW 502 BMW Longlife-01. That being said i have nothing I'd put 0W-16 in.
C3 5W-30 are some pretty stout oils so I'd say they were wanting the comparison against one of the tougher standards to meet?
Although the Porsche A30 almost double the C3 standard

 

[ndfergy]

Pure marketing. To the viewer the test seems fair with the participants unaware of the oil being used. However, that doesn't matter since the oil company controls the test and can skew the results in their favour. To wit:

1. Half of the vehicles could be new and the other half broken in
2. Different schedules per vehicle
3. Test duration with colder starts

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
So a premium PAO-based synthetic 0w-16 did better than a generic 5w-30 in many key performance areas including relative to the performance limits of API SN? Colour me shocked

Yea, shocked!! LOL Cherry picking for results at its best, no surprise, but there are some people that will believe.


It's a 5w30 C3 (HTHS 3.5) oil their comparing it to. Not a run of the mill SN.


It's still a generic C3 oil, obviously propped up with VII (hence the viscosity loss) versus the none or next to none needed to blend a 0w-16 with PAO. None of the graphs had scales or any sort of markers save the base API limits, which by definition, everyone is going to be better than in order to gain approval.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by ndfergy
Pure marketing. To the viewer the test seems fair with the participants unaware of the oil being used. However, that doesn't matter since the oil company controls the test and can skew the results in their favour. To wit:

1. Half of the vehicles could be new and the other half broken in
2. Different schedules per vehicle
3. Test duration with colder starts


Pure marketing indeed! Years back there was a saying here that went something like this: Pay for the test, get the results you're looking for. It would have been real easy for them to mention the 5W30 oil they were comparing it to. Or better yet, use their 5W30. I have a feeling they canned that idea because they weren't going to get the results they were looking for.

 

[ndfergy]

Agreed. Not saying this is not a good product but I'm too old to fall for this rubbish.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by ndfergy
Agreed. Not saying this is not a good product but I'm too old to fall for this rubbish.

I'm sure they make a fine oil too, which is probably why they didn't test it against their own stuff in a "thicker" grade.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by PimTac
I think the apples to oranges concept here is to show how 0w16 can perform as well or better than the popular 5w30 and provide further benefits in fuel economy.

These Aygo engines are 1.0 liter 3 bangers. I'm sure they get a workout.



Well, according to the OP they were used for in-home nursing, so we aren't talking time-sensitive delivery or taxi service here. These are 68HP engines (68HP/L), which isn't much more than a 2V Modular and significantly less than other engines that spec 5w-20 like the Pentastar.

On top of this, the KGB40 version of the 1.0L spec's a 0w-20, so there was no real risk running the 0w-16 in this application and the heavier C3 rated lubricant was overkill (the previous version spec'd the C3 oil).

 

[IndyFan]

Are there any UOA's on Ravenol oils?

 

[HangFire]

TBN is really, really irrelevant here.

The graphs have no real data, for example the viscosity graphs are not related as the 5w-30 graph should reflect that it starts out thicker. But it does not.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Originally Posted by HangFire
TBN is really, really irrelevant here.

The graphs have no real data, for example the viscosity graphs are not related as the 5w-30 graph should reflect that it starts out thicker. But it does not.


It's not for us to study and interpret the data, they didn't give data, they gave marketing.

 

[OilUzer]

What are the price differences (per gal.) between the two?
iirc Base oil of anything with 0 is typically better I'm guessing 0Wx16 must have a good base!
Price will give u some idea ...Not that the price is everything but you can't compare Toyota with Yugo (sp?)

 

[dave1251]

It really does not prove anything. For this to happen there would have to be a lifetime of tests teardowns fuel economy tests consumption and ect.

 

[buster]

The test was fine for what it was intended for. It used real cars, in real driving conditions. Lab samples were taken and the fact is the 0w16 held up very well. This shouldn't be a surprise. There is a smaller spread with a 0w16. Most appear to be majority PAO based. I'd like to know the factors that make the 0w16 so good. In other words, other than viscosity, what was added to the 0w16 in terms of additives etc. that made up for the lower viscosity? How is the chemistry different than the 5w30? Also consider that if you tested these cars in a different situation, such as the autobahn or any high speed highway driving, the results may have been entirely different. However, for the test conducted, and trusting what the results are, the 0w16 did outperform the 5w30 C3 rated oil.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by dave1251
It really does not prove anything. For this to happen there would have to be a lifetime of tests teardowns fuel economy tests consumption and ect.


This

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by buster
The test was fine for what it was intended for. It used real cars, in real driving conditions. Lab samples were taken and the fact is the 0w16 held up very well. This shouldn't be a surprise. There is a smaller spread with a 0w16. Most appear to be majority PAO based. I'd like to know the factors that make the 0w16 so good. In other words, other than viscosity, what was added to the 0w16 in terms of additives etc. that made up for the lower viscosity? How is the chemistry different than the 5w30? Also consider that if you tested these cars in a different situation, such as the autobahn or any high speed highway driving, the results may have been entirely different. However, for the test conducted, and trusting what the results are, the 0w16 did outperform the 5w30 C3 rated oil.


Realistically, the engine is a modern Toyota design that spec's a 5w-20/0w-20. Its design parameters likely involved testing with a 0w-16, and one that was not majority PAO-based like this one, so the allowed threshold for viscosity loss wasn't even approached. There was no risk of poor performance here.

This is akin to running premium 0w-20 and a generic 5w-40 in a Pentastar and then claiming superiority of the 0w-20. The results are expected and since the graphs presented are completely without scale, there is not much more than "it seemed to hold up" that we can draw from this.

 

[Shannow]

For the record, I've been a fan of Ravenol 0W16 since it came out...harman index of 1...no VIIs to help it shear. As I've said previously, I would have ZERO hesitation in using that specific oil instead of the super VI Japanese OEM 0W20s.

As to what an advertisement "proves"

Nothing much.

They swap between non elucidated parameters of "wear" between the oils, and the API bench/engine tests...which, as per the Amsoil "discussion", every oil manufacturer beats handsomely.

For those who consider advertising to be equivalent to proper SAE studies...more power to you...have your warm and fuzzy feelings, and whiter than white shorts (because those advertisements are science too).

The question is why they used a generic "most popular grade in Germany" rather than their own C3 5W30...for example
https://www.ravenol.de/en/products/usage/d/Product/show/p/ravenol-vmp-sae-5w-30.html
Harman Index virtually 1
Noack 7.2
Pour Point -60C (-76F)