That's not what he asked, he was asking for an oil with a stronger additive package which might help mitigate the issue.
I was responding to your claim that the oil had a "stronger" additive package, just pointing out that the oils aren't formulated to be "robust" in terms of base oil selection. But, to your point, I'm not seeing it in the links you posted. What, in particular, are you using to make that determination?
I see, for the 0W-20:
- Phosphorous right in the middle of the road at 750ppm
- Calcium and magnesium at pretty typical levels
Only thing that stands out might be the higher level of moly?
The 0W-16 looks pretty much the same.
"So, a more thorough way to address the issue, apart from thicker oil, is to find an oil with an additive pkg better able to combat, or mitigate, the effects of gas in the oil."
I responded with an oil which seems to have a robust additive package.
Again, I welcome your input on what part of either of those VOA's show a more robust oil, beyond just having more moly. I'm just not seeing it.
An oil with less VII is going to be less prone to viscosity loss through shear, particularly if the VII it does have is of a higher quality, which most OTS oils don't use. If you are already experiencing viscosity loss through fuel dilution, this is helpful in minimizing overall loss.
If you feel that an oil with better base oils and less vii is the answer, then by all means, suggest a different oil to him.
I was responding to you, not the OP.
Edit: I'm also out of the loop a bit here, I don't come here much these days. I've searched through your posts to try and find more info about your claims that TGMO is light group III with a lot of vii, and mobil 1 is largely pao with very little vii. How did you determine this?
Well, let's first look at the TGMO 0W-20 VOA you linked:
- High volatility at 12.9%
- High viscosity index of 227
Both of those things point to very light base oil with very high VII content.
In comparison, the pre-revision version of M1 EP had a low VI (though how low is up to debate, there's some question as to the accuracy of the KV40 figure Mobil was claiming) which pointed to little to no VII in the product. The thread on this oil can be found here:
Or, alternative title: Is M1 EP 0w-20 a monograde? Running entirely contrary to the previous "uber high VI" fascination with TGMO, we have this beauty: Which we know is majority PAO-based: Of course Mobil doesn't list the VI for this oil, so I calculated it using the Widman calc: Yes...
bobistheoilguy.com
I see the noack differences between M1 and TGMO 0w-20, but I haven't seen anything for 0w-16.
Mobil's 0W-16 was almost entirely PAO, so would require little to no VII:
Unfortunately, they do not publish KV40, so we can't calculate the VI to confirm.
The TGMO 0W-16 details posted by SK showed Noack at 13%, so essentially the same idea as the 0W-20, which implies it's a similar style base oil blend (it looks like basically the same oil) with a bit less VII.
So, if we circle back to the OP's issue, assuming we want to stay with a 0W-16, our options are limited. AW chemistry is of course limited by the API and most oils are going to be very similar in this regard. So, the only real avenue we have to reduce viscosity loss is to do so from other sources like shear, which means AFE 0W-16 is probably a "better" choice. If we are willing to go a bit heavier, expanding our options to a 0W-20, then the scope of available offerings is expanded a bit. M1 HM/EP HM has a bit more phosphorous at 800ppm, but if we look at the Euro offerings, M1 ESP X2 0W-20 has 880ppm, the most "robust" 0W-20 they offer.
I'd expect we would see similar from other Euro 0W-20's, so, if he's interested in a more robust lubricant with no real risk, a Euro 0W-20 with Porsche C20, VW 508 00/509 00 and MB 229.71 would be a great starting point.