The jury is out because this viscosity is new to North America, but if i were a betting man, my money would be on Mobil1 having covered all the bases and making a serviceable, no drama product.
And my 40 year use of M1 oils has proven that very thing in my many engines that I have used their lubricants in. To me and many of my friends and family that use their products. If an engine builder recommends 0-16 then I would trust M1 0-16 in their engines.
Which bit of that sheet points you to that conclusion ?
The name ???
Most respectfully, sir, having framed the issue as you have: yes, in this instance, it is XOM's name that points to that conclusion. In this regard, you have to admit XOM and TM (which is insisting upon the use of the stuff in its 2018-2019 product lines) are putting their respective reputations at stake with the introduction of 0W-16 weight as the "recommended" fill.
OK, so the data sheet shouldn't worry about all those pesky figures,, numbers, and specs...just say "M1, trust us, we are the best"
That's what I was getting at...wat on the data sheet other than M1 indicated that it was another quality product.
Quality Assurance says that if you say you are going to do it, you do it. SO if I take a piece of doodoo, paint it pink, and put it in a gold box wrapped with a lilac ribbon, and I follow an auditable procedure that states exactly what I'm doing, and am audited that I am following it, I can be certified that I am providing a quality product.
Not saying that M1 are using doodoo, but you need the context of the poster that I was replying to