Mobil 1 0W-16
- Thread starter cdavidc1949
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
OVERKILL, I appreciate your thoughts, which were expressed in a kind and constructive way. I mostly agree.
As you said none of us are perfect. I know how much you seriously offended and alienated some people here. You went to some details about me, which I mostly agree. Perhaps you don't know but Shannow has also been harsh and vulgar to me often but I'm sorry if I was harsh or unfair to him.
However, there are lines to be drawn here. nap's behavior is unacceptable. You or someone else having issues with me doesn't justify such behavior.
Please don't take it as me justifying anything, I'm simply explaining it. You are both conditioned to respond negatively to each other based on previous exchanges and so predictably, that is the case here as well. That will not change until you both choose to do something about it. That should be self-evident.
Regarding the relationship with Shannow, I am well aware of the history, as I generally follow his posts for their insight. I may not always agree with him, but I appreciate the candour and effort he puts into them. He's an Engineer not a Social Worker, so I don't expect him to be perfectly polite and every post dripping with understanding and compassion, so by extension the same applies to you. Ergo, if he says something that comes off a bit crass, I take it in context. Regardless of your relations at this juncture based on that history, there is room for constructive exchange between you two and it would greatly benefit the board. He eases up a bit on the slamming, you drop the patronizing tone and take him seriously, there's a lot of good that could come out of that IMHO.
OVERKILL, I appreciate your thoughts, which were expressed in a kind and constructive way. I mostly agree.
As you said none of us are perfect. I know how much you seriously offended and alienated some people here. You went to some details about me, which I mostly agree. Perhaps you don't know but Shannow has also been harsh and vulgar to me often but I'm sorry if I was harsh or unfair to him.
However, there are lines to be drawn here. nap's behavior is unacceptable. You or someone else having issues with me doesn't justify such behavior.
Please don't take it as me justifying anything, I'm simply explaining it. You are both conditioned to respond negatively to each other based on previous exchanges and so predictably, that is the case here as well. That will not change until you both choose to do something about it. That should be self-evident.
Regarding the relationship with Shannow, I am well aware of the history, as I generally follow his posts for their insight. I may not always agree with him, but I appreciate the candour and effort he puts into them. He's an Engineer not a Social Worker, so I don't expect him to be perfectly polite and every post dripping with understanding and compassion, so by extension the same applies to you. Ergo, if he says something that comes off a bit crass, I take it in context. Regardless of your relations at this juncture based on that history, there is room for constructive exchange between you two and it would greatly benefit the board. He eases up a bit on the slamming, you drop the patronizing tone and take him seriously, there's a lot of good that could come out of that IMHO.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I don't expect people to be perfectly polite and every post dripping with understanding and compassion ...
I changed your quote to "people" because many people here get passionate in their discussions, while maintaining a mostly civil attitude. It's pretty apparent when someone loses it and really gets personal, which eventually leads to nothing good.
My new phrase in these big back and forth discussions when someone starts really losing it is: "Get technical, not personal."
I don't expect people to be perfectly polite and every post dripping with understanding and compassion ...
I changed your quote to "people" because many people here get passionate in their discussions, while maintaining a mostly civil attitude. It's pretty apparent when someone loses it and really gets personal, which eventually leads to nothing good.
My new phrase in these big back and forth discussions when someone starts really losing it is: "Get technical, not personal."
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
... The problems with very thin grades therefore have nothing to do with the crank bearings but rather probably more with the timing chains, skirt wear and ring wear.
Everyone here seems more focused on the main bearings, where you won't find the excess wear anyway.
Agree. BITOG seems obsessed with engine bearings, which are in my limited experience one of the least troublesome critical components in non-abused vehicles. I've been acquainted with engines with a variety of other lubrication-related issues, but never a single bearing or oil pressure problem I can recall. Bearings are just easier to understand and simpler to analyze theoretically than, for example, the lubrication regime of rings or chains.
... The problems with very thin grades therefore have nothing to do with the crank bearings but rather probably more with the timing chains, skirt wear and ring wear.
Everyone here seems more focused on the main bearings, where you won't find the excess wear anyway.
Agree. BITOG seems obsessed with engine bearings, which are in my limited experience one of the least troublesome critical components in non-abused vehicles. I've been acquainted with engines with a variety of other lubrication-related issues, but never a single bearing or oil pressure problem I can recall. Bearings are just easier to understand and simpler to analyze theoretically than, for example, the lubrication regime of rings or chains.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I don't expect people to be perfectly polite and every post dripping with understanding and compassion ...
I changed your quote to "people" because many people here get passionate in their discussions, while maintaining a mostly civil attitude. It's pretty apparent when someone loses it and really gets personal, which eventually leads to nothing good.
My new phrase in these big back and forth discussions when someone starts really losing it is: "Get technical, not personal."
That's the whole point!
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I don't expect people to be perfectly polite and every post dripping with understanding and compassion ...
I changed your quote to "people" because many people here get passionate in their discussions, while maintaining a mostly civil attitude. It's pretty apparent when someone loses it and really gets personal, which eventually leads to nothing good.
My new phrase in these big back and forth discussions when someone starts really losing it is: "Get technical, not personal."
That's the whole point!
On the subject of M1 0W-16, I think it will be a good way to make blends out of high viscosity and high ZDDP oils like M1 15W-50 and M1 motorcycle oils: 10W-40 and 20W-50. One should be able to use a high enough percentage of those oils to get the ZDDP concentrations up quite high. Who wants to gather and crunch the numbers? Start by picking a blend viscosity at 100C.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
... The problems with very thin grades therefore have nothing to do with the crank bearings but rather probably more with the timing chains, skirt wear and ring wear.
Everyone here seems more focused on the main bearings, where you won't find the excess wear anyway.
Agree. BITOG seems obsessed with engine bearings, which are in my limited experience one of the least troublesome critical components in non-abused vehicles. I've been acquainted with engines with a variety of other lubrication-related issues, but never a single bearing or oil pressure problem I can recall. Bearings are just easier to understand and simpler to analyze theoretically than, for example, the lubrication regime of rings or chains.
Rod bearings have, over the years, been a point of concern in certain engines. SBC's and SBF's with the non-351 firing order seem to wear the front bearings more than the rest. The "HO/351W" firing order (which is the same cylinder firing order found on GM's newer LS engines) resolved that issue and was, IIRC, one of the reasons for the change. Bizarrely, Ford went back to the Flathead firing order for the Coyote
But it wasn't just hot-rodded lo-po 302's, 289's and SBC's that were having issues with rod bearings at higher power levels, which people addressed, with varying degrees of success, using HV, HP and HV/HP oil pumps as well as heavier oils. And it wasn't like this "issue" was endemic. It was more a of premature wear thing, relative to the other rod bearings in the engine, exasperated by higher power levels. But BMW has, even in recent years, had issues with rod bearing longevity. Some of it can be placed on oil system design and track use but one of their major mitigation techniques (the success of which is debatable) was/is the spec'ing of quite heavy oil: 10w-60.
Shannow has shared in the past a paper by Honda about rod bearing design and the necessary change in width when going with these newer ultra-light lubricants. So bearing wear IS a concern, and a consideration, but certainly those other aspects of design are just as important. It's synergistic and thus the approach must be as well.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
... The problems with very thin grades therefore have nothing to do with the crank bearings but rather probably more with the timing chains, skirt wear and ring wear.
Everyone here seems more focused on the main bearings, where you won't find the excess wear anyway.
Agree. BITOG seems obsessed with engine bearings, which are in my limited experience one of the least troublesome critical components in non-abused vehicles. I've been acquainted with engines with a variety of other lubrication-related issues, but never a single bearing or oil pressure problem I can recall. Bearings are just easier to understand and simpler to analyze theoretically than, for example, the lubrication regime of rings or chains.
Rod bearings have, over the years, been a point of concern in certain engines. SBC's and SBF's with the non-351 firing order seem to wear the front bearings more than the rest. The "HO/351W" firing order (which is the same cylinder firing order found on GM's newer LS engines) resolved that issue and was, IIRC, one of the reasons for the change. Bizarrely, Ford went back to the Flathead firing order for the Coyote
But it wasn't just hot-rodded lo-po 302's, 289's and SBC's that were having issues with rod bearings at higher power levels, which people addressed, with varying degrees of success, using HV, HP and HV/HP oil pumps as well as heavier oils. And it wasn't like this "issue" was endemic. It was more a of premature wear thing, relative to the other rod bearings in the engine, exasperated by higher power levels. But BMW has, even in recent years, had issues with rod bearing longevity. Some of it can be placed on oil system design and track use but one of their major mitigation techniques (the success of which is debatable) was/is the spec'ing of quite heavy oil: 10w-60.
Shannow has shared in the past a paper by Honda about rod bearing design and the necessary change in width when going with these newer ultra-light lubricants. So bearing wear IS a concern, and a consideration, but certainly those other aspects of design are just as important. It's synergistic and thus the approach must be as well.
I want to point out a minor error, that's been pointed out here before, in the publication claiming that 0w-16 has been used in Japan for so over 15 years. When 0w-16 isn't on SAE J300, it's pretty clear the product being used can't be so described. Any grade designation not on SAE J300 at the time is a proprietary invention, and not a legitimate grade.
Originally Posted By: Garak
... Any grade designation not on SAE J300 at the time is a proprietary invention, and not a legitimate grade.
Good point. Do you know whether viscometric properties of the earlier proprietary 0W-16s were consistent with the subsequent legitimate grade?
... Any grade designation not on SAE J300 at the time is a proprietary invention, and not a legitimate grade.
Good point. Do you know whether viscometric properties of the earlier proprietary 0W-16s were consistent with the subsequent legitimate grade?
That's a good question. I'd assume they'd be similar, and perhaps not meet minimum HTHS for a 0w-20 at the time, so not be able to be labelled that, either.
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: Garak
... Any grade designation not on SAE J300 at the time is a proprietary invention, and not a legitimate grade.
Good point. Do you know whether viscometric properties of the earlier proprietary 0W-16s were consistent with the subsequent legitimate grade?
Honda Papers 22-2_22e, and 16-2_25e have some good guts on where they went before petitioning API to go sub 20
Originally Posted By: Garak
... Any grade designation not on SAE J300 at the time is a proprietary invention, and not a legitimate grade.
Good point. Do you know whether viscometric properties of the earlier proprietary 0W-16s were consistent with the subsequent legitimate grade?
Honda Papers 22-2_22e, and 16-2_25e have some good guts on where they went before petitioning API to go sub 20
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Only thing I'd use 0W16 for would be to lube my electric razor.
Put it in the oil can for door hinges.
Only thing I'd use 0W16 for would be to lube my electric razor.
Put it in the oil can for door hinges.
My point with the SAE 16 mono-grade example, was to ask the question why does SAE 16 have to be 0W16, and not 5W, 10W, 15W or 20W16?
If you run a mono-grade up to the SAE 16 limit of 8.2 @ 100c, the HTHS will be 2.9ish, which is higher than most XW20s.
I ran two 2013 Matrix on SAE 30 or 15W40 with zero oil consumption or other issues. Both are sold.
If you run a mono-grade up to the SAE 16 limit of 8.2 @ 100c, the HTHS will be 2.9ish, which is higher than most XW20s.
I ran two 2013 Matrix on SAE 30 or 15W40 with zero oil consumption or other issues. Both are sold.
Originally Posted By: buster
https://www.mobil.com/english-us/passenger-vehicle-lube/pds/glxxmobil-1-0w16
Looks like another quality product from M1!!!
https://www.mobil.com/english-us/passenger-vehicle-lube/pds/glxxmobil-1-0w16
Looks like another quality product from M1!!!
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: buster
https://www.mobil.com/english-us/passenger-vehicle-lube/pds/glxxmobil-1-0w16
Looks like another quality product from M1!!!
Which bit of that sheet points you to that conclusion ?
The name ???
Originally Posted By: buster
https://www.mobil.com/english-us/passenger-vehicle-lube/pds/glxxmobil-1-0w16
Looks like another quality product from M1!!!
Which bit of that sheet points you to that conclusion ?
The name ???
Originally Posted By: buster
LOL!!
+1
LOL!!
+1
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
