Mobil 1 0W-16

Pennzoil motor oil
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
[...] All these said, you can interpret these results as a modern SAE xW-20 would pass these tests, despite the unusual bearing design.[/b][/color]


Wow Galileo you're again at building a strawman and attacking that one instead of the original question... and you don't even get points for successfully doing it.... the word "would" is indicative of wishful thinking but nothing more than that...

Let me repeat the original question: which laws of physics have changed since 1977?
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn

Oh I see. I thought the problems were undersized oil return holes on the 4-cylinder engines and excessive head temperatures and an ineffective PCV system on the 6-cylinder? If it were a problem with the oil of the day wouldn’t issues have been more widespread among all manufacturers? I know Chrysler had a problem but what about all the rest?


The question is - excessive as compared to what? Would it be something like in "excessive for the real world capacity of the API SF-SJ certified 5W30s of the days to resist thermal degradation"?

There were four manufacturers that took the brunt of the blame at that time - Chrysler, Toyota, Mercedes and Volkswagen. And, interestingly enough, not all engines actually sludged. I know for sure since I had one of them at the time. I just was not using 5W30.

The moral of the story is that an oil that passes API tests does not necessarily perform up to its promises or engine's designer expectations when in use in real world. To make sure of it, manufacturers now add their own smorgasbord of tests and certifications to API/ILSAC. Dexos being one of the latest stories.
 
Originally Posted By: nap
The question is - excessive as compared to what? Would it be something like in "excessive for the real world capacity of the API SF-SJ certified 5W30s of the days to resist thermal degradation"?

There were four manufacturers that took the brunt of the blame at that time - Chrysler, Toyota, Mercedes and Volkswagen. And, interestingly enough, not all engines actually sludged. I know for sure since I had one of them at the time. I just was not using 5W30.

The moral of the story is that an oil that passes API tests does not necessarily perform up to its promises or engine's designer expectations when in use in real world. To make sure of it, manufacturers now add their own smorgasbord of tests and certifications to API/ILSAC. Dexos being one of the latest stories.

Excessive as compared to the rest of their engines at the time which did not have a sludging problem. That specific problem was confined to the 1MZ-FE engine.

And the Mercedes and VW engines - wouldn't they have specified ACEA oils? Were those deficient as well as API spec oils?
 
The complaints on record are from the North American market, where API oils were popular. Since then MB and VW have learned the lesson and came up with their own oil specs / certifications.
 
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
... I don't see what's to complain if someone design the engine to work with it from the ground up, and it has been proven in Japan for a few years.
Probably true. The protests seem to come from people who cannot grasp that such engines lubricated by 0W-16 may be at no greater risk losing full hydrodynamic lubrication than Grandpa's V-8 was on 10W-40.


Apparently the oil manufacturers agree with "the people who cannot grasp"....

Exhibit A:

Page 8 of http://www.ravenol.de/fileadmin/content/documents/pdfs/Ravenol_EFE_SAE_0W-16__en.pdf

where Ravenol plots various oils on the Stribeck curve. One may note that, according to the chart, 0W30 is the absolute minimum to stay in hydrodynamic mode, with 0W20 slightly going into boundary mode (and thus calling for some EP additives in order to work nicely), and 0W16 going even further.

Exhibit B:

Page 2 of http://www.eneos.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/0W-16-Brochure.pdf

where Eneos also confirms that a 0W16 w/o additives would work in boundary mode, and that it's relying on EP additives in order to work nicely.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I can't help but wonder,how thin can you possibly go before adequate hydrodynamic lubrication is compromised? Especially with several manufacturers "re-specing" back up to 5W30. Me,I'll continue to run a 30wt in my 0W20 spec'd Accord,with 10W30 going in next oil change.

When manufacturers spec a certain grade of oil and uses the terminology "for best fuel economy" that tells me it's not for "best protection".


Piggybacking off Patman's last post, that question was also asked 30 years ago. I remember because the Dad asked it.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I can't help but wonder,how thin can you possibly go before adequate hydrodynamic lubrication is compromised?


According to Ravenol it would be a competent 0W30. (see the links in my previous post).
 
There was likely a lot of consternation when multi grade oils were announced. When the 5w oils came out the howling and gnashing of teeth could be heard in every garage in the country. Now the 0w have had this same effect on some for years now.

Yet, where are all the engine failures?
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac


Yet, where are all the engine failures?


If you need some first hand evidence, feel free to pour 0W16 into yours
laugh.gif
 
LOL I think car companies need to start making the rest of the car last longer. Once you're over 150k cars can nickel-and-dime you to death.

Whether a 0w20 vs 30 vs 40 will provide a longer lasting engine can't often be observed because the car becomes a money pit.

What I don't like is how overly complex engines are becoming to squeeze small amounts of fuel efficiency gains. More things to go wrong.
 
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: PimTac


Yet, where are all the engine failures?


If you need some first hand evidence, feel free to pour 0W16 into yours
laugh.gif





This discussion is going nowhere. Good luck
 
Originally Posted By: buster
LOL I think car companies need to start making the rest of the car last longer. Once you're over 150k cars can nickel-and-dime you to death.

Whether a 0w20 vs 30 vs 40 will provide a longer lasting engine can't often be observed because the car becomes a money pit.

What I don't like is how overly complex engines are becoming to squeeze small amounts of fuel efficiency gains. More things to go wrong.


Excellent point.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: CR94
^^ not a rational point.


Not a pertinent question.


Huh? There was no question. Lol


The question was "where are all the engine failures", one of the most popular methods of trolling around here.

If you really want a good answer, let me quote from a different thread:

Originally Posted By: kschachn
So all the Toyota, all the Honda, all the Ford vehicles out there running on X0-20 are experiencing engine failures right at the end of the warranty? Guess I didn't notice that.


Originally Posted By: JAG
People need to stop often going straight to the talk of engine failures to prove their point. Most passenger car and truck engines don’t fail. Most slowly wear out and are scrapped or rebuilt because oil consumption gets so bad. That is due to some combination of ring/liner wear and valve guide/seal wear and deterioration. For some, but I think the former case is much more common these days, is low oil pressure due to bearing wear. So, people should be discussing wear rates, not engine failures.


oh and funny how you were present too:

Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: JAG
People need to stop often going straight to the talk of engine failures to prove their point...


It's a figure of speech. Just like others saying 0W16 is "0Wnothing" or W20 are thin as water, or these thin oils only last the warranty period. I'm sure we've all read those too.
 
It is not trolling, it’s a fact. Show me news articles or papers reporting on the massive numbers of engine failures or issues associated with 0w oils. There are none.

Your preconceived bias that thin oils are unable to hold up in engines that these oils are recommended in is very obvious. You certainly have the right to run whichever grade you wish but just spouting off personal anecdotes doesn’t cut it.
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
It is not trolling, it’s a fact. Show me news articles or papers reporting on the massive numbers of engine failures or issues associated with 0w oils. There are none.

Your preconceived bias that thin oils are unable to hold up in engines that these oils are recommended in is very obvious. You certainly have the right to run whichever grade you wish but just spouting off personal anecdotes doesn’t cut it.



Of course it's trolling. And you had to build a strawman in support of it.

The discussion was about 5W30 at its introduction and infancy and the well documented sludge monsters of the time.

Instead of addressing that, you ask the trolling question about 0W. And you hope the tactics will go unnoticed?
 
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: CR94
^^ not a rational point.


Not a pertinent question.


Huh? There was no question. Lol


The question was "where are all the engine failures", one of the most popular methods of trolling around here.

If you really want a good answer, let me quote from a different thread:

Originally Posted By: kschachn
So all the Toyota, all the Honda, all the Ford vehicles out there running on X0-20 are experiencing engine failures right at the end of the warranty? Guess I didn't notice that.


Originally Posted By: JAG
People need to stop often going straight to the talk of engine failures to prove their point. Most passenger car and truck engines don’t fail. Most slowly wear out and are scrapped or rebuilt because oil consumption gets so bad. That is due to some combination of ring/liner wear and valve guide/seal wear and deterioration. For some, but I think the former case is much more common these days, is low oil pressure due to bearing wear. So, people should be discussing wear rates, not engine failures.


oh and funny how you were present too:

Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: JAG
People need to stop often going straight to the talk of engine failures to prove their point...


It's a figure of speech. Just like others saying 0W16 is "0Wnothing" or W20 are thin as water, or these thin oils only last the warranty period. I'm sure we've all read those too.









Oh, I thought it was a different question. This was settled a long time ago in the minds of the two camps. It is funny though, i agree, because when the "failure question" is shot down, the thick crowd uses consumption as their next point, well...




I'm sure this list will be discredited too. Lol. On and on...

*and i use both 5w30 and 5W-20 (except the turbo)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mikey V.
  • Locked
Two new Mobil 0W-16 oils coming to the market...
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
Gokhan
T
New Pennzoil 0w-16
Replies
3
Views
3K
slacktide_bitog
A
  • Locked
No Mobil 1 SN oil in Canada?
Replies
11
Views
2K
addyguy
The Critic
  • Locked
Mobil 1 0W-16
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
19K
wander2039
D
  • Locked
Mobil 1 0W-40 SM vs SN
Replies
10
Views
5K
dirtydannyd
Back
Top Bottom