Mobil 1 0W-16
- Thread starter cdavidc1949
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
How well would 0W16 protect or hold up compared to a 5W/10W30 in a car where someone drives it like they stole it constantly compared to the old lady Sunday driver?
Originally Posted By: wemay
It is funny though, i agree, because when the "failure question" is shot down, the thick crowd uses consumption as their next point, well...
How about, for a change, discussing the spectacular failures of the fiercest promoter of thin oils?
https://honda.oemdtc.com/TSB/A13-082.pdf
https://honda.oemdtc.com/TSB/A13-079.pdf
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2016/SB-10083874-2280.pdf
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-honda...d-idUSKCN1GE1P8
It is funny though, i agree, because when the "failure question" is shot down, the thick crowd uses consumption as their next point, well...
How about, for a change, discussing the spectacular failures of the fiercest promoter of thin oils?
https://honda.oemdtc.com/TSB/A13-082.pdf
https://honda.oemdtc.com/TSB/A13-079.pdf
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2016/SB-10083874-2280.pdf
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-honda...d-idUSKCN1GE1P8
How about another coincidence:
ACEA B4 C3 C4 E4 E6 E7 E9 HTHS of 3.5 and the findings in this article:
www.mdpi.com/2075-4442/3/2/142/pdf
Before you cry wolf, the conclusion is that 0W20 is perfectly good. As long as it has a HTHS >= 3.5 that is
ACEA B4 C3 C4 E4 E6 E7 E9 HTHS of 3.5 and the findings in this article:
www.mdpi.com/2075-4442/3/2/142/pdf
Before you cry wolf, the conclusion is that 0W20 is perfectly good. As long as it has a HTHS >= 3.5 that is
wemay
Site Donor 2023
wolf, Wolf, WOLF!!!
Yes....
30 will give you insignificant better protection
20 will give you insignificant MPG gains
It's a wash.
Yes....
30 will give you insignificant better protection
20 will give you insignificant MPG gains
It's a wash.
Originally Posted By: wemay
wolf, Wolf, WOLF!!!
Yes....
30 will give you insignificant better protection
20 will give you insignificant MPG gains
It's a wash.
You're kind of glossing over it, the wording was "strong" not "insignificant" :
"Therefore, a more common 0W20 lubricant with a HTHS-viscosity of 2.8 mPa s is investigated in addition. However, the analysis with the reduced HTHS-viscosity lubricant showed a strong presence of metal-metal contact under full load operation
already at 1000 rpm engine speed."
I'll take the better lubrication thank you.
wolf, Wolf, WOLF!!!
Yes....
30 will give you insignificant better protection
20 will give you insignificant MPG gains
It's a wash.
You're kind of glossing over it, the wording was "strong" not "insignificant" :
"Therefore, a more common 0W20 lubricant with a HTHS-viscosity of 2.8 mPa s is investigated in addition. However, the analysis with the reduced HTHS-viscosity lubricant showed a strong presence of metal-metal contact under full load operation
already at 1000 rpm engine speed."
I'll take the better lubrication thank you.
I used the word "coincidence" not "evidence", are you doing the strawman again?
The search is "thin oil [censored]" - just kidding. Try "HTHS journal bearing". Even more interesting is "HTHS piston ring". Apparently the rings are the most HTHS sensitive engine part. Now you can connect it to Honda's trouble, all related to rings.
The search is "thin oil [censored]" - just kidding. Try "HTHS journal bearing". Even more interesting is "HTHS piston ring". Apparently the rings are the most HTHS sensitive engine part. Now you can connect it to Honda's trouble, all related to rings.
Originally Posted By: nap
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.
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?
Oh, I see, I am the one, not you, building a straw man here?? Despite you making claims like: Laws of physics don't change; let's use 1977's oils and knowledge. Anything that is not rated ACEA A3/B4 will destroy your bearings.
You hadn't (couldn't) even read the paper and made false statements based on its abstract.
Of course, it's not about laws of physics being the same.
However, I'll repeat what has changed:
(1) They hadn't even defined HTHSV in 1977 yet and you took the cP numbers as equivalent to the modern definition. 3.5 cP mentioned there is as little as 2.5 cP in the modern definition.
(2) They found out that the base-oil type greatly affects their results. The key to the tests were very high oil temperatures. The high-temperature performance of 1977's VI = 100 base oils are no match to modern base oils with VI = 120 - 140.
(3) Bearings used didn't have any overlays, which is never the case in an actual engine, even in 1977. They didn't directly apply to real-world situations.
(4) How many bearings using xW-30, which have HTHSV
You have posted so many falsehoods in this thread. I'm surprised that the others have been so nice to you despite you constantly insulting them on top of your false claims.
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.
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?
Oh, I see, I am the one, not you, building a straw man here?? Despite you making claims like: Laws of physics don't change; let's use 1977's oils and knowledge. Anything that is not rated ACEA A3/B4 will destroy your bearings.
You hadn't (couldn't) even read the paper and made false statements based on its abstract.
Of course, it's not about laws of physics being the same.
However, I'll repeat what has changed:
(1) They hadn't even defined HTHSV in 1977 yet and you took the cP numbers as equivalent to the modern definition. 3.5 cP mentioned there is as little as 2.5 cP in the modern definition.
(2) They found out that the base-oil type greatly affects their results. The key to the tests were very high oil temperatures. The high-temperature performance of 1977's VI = 100 base oils are no match to modern base oils with VI = 120 - 140.
(3) Bearings used didn't have any overlays, which is never the case in an actual engine, even in 1977. They didn't directly apply to real-world situations.
(4) How many bearings using xW-30, which have HTHSV
You have posted so many falsehoods in this thread. I'm surprised that the others have been so nice to you despite you constantly insulting them on top of your false claims.
The point to be made here is that the owner should take into account how they drive their vehicle, in what conditions they do so, and add in any demands on such vehicle like towing, hauling loads etc.
For the majority of owners whose cars engines loaf at 1500 rpm or so while commuting or running errands, a 0w oil will perform just fine if that engine is specced for it.
For the majority of owners whose cars engines loaf at 1500 rpm or so while commuting or running errands, a 0w oil will perform just fine if that engine is specced for it.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Your posts on this thread have reached a nonsense level.
Didn't we already establish that you cannot properly understand a footnote as simple as "(1) Not required for SAE 0W-20"?
At this comprehension level it's no wonder that most of what you're reading looks like nonsense to you.
Your posts on this thread have reached a nonsense level.
Didn't we already establish that you cannot properly understand a footnote as simple as "(1) Not required for SAE 0W-20"?
At this comprehension level it's no wonder that most of what you're reading looks like nonsense to you.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: wemay
wolf, Wolf, WOLF!!!
Yes....
30 will give you insignificant better protection
20 will give you insignificant MPG gains
It's a wash.
You're kind of glossing over it, the wording was "strong" not "insignificant" :
As are you when confronted with real-world results. Spade
Originally Posted By: wemay
wolf, Wolf, WOLF!!!
Yes....
30 will give you insignificant better protection
20 will give you insignificant MPG gains
It's a wash.
You're kind of glossing over it, the wording was "strong" not "insignificant" :
As are you when confronted with real-world results. Spade
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Speaking of straw man arguments;
“Before you cry wolf, the conclusion is that 0W20 is perfectly good. As long as it has a HTHS >= 3.5 that is “
That was a joke not an argument, and you misquoted me by eliminating the
that clarified what the intention was.
So now we're at misquoting.... great job!
Speaking of straw man arguments;
“Before you cry wolf, the conclusion is that 0W20 is perfectly good. As long as it has a HTHS >= 3.5 that is “
That was a joke not an argument, and you misquoted me by eliminating the
So now we're at misquoting.... great job!
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: wemay
As are you when confronted with real-world results. Spade
Like in "no engine has ever blown on Mobil 0W16" ? yeah right
Lol, touche'
Originally Posted By: wemay
As are you when confronted with real-world results. Spade
Like in "no engine has ever blown on Mobil 0W16" ? yeah right
Lol, touche'
Originally Posted By: PimTac
The point to be made here is that the owner should take into account how they drive their vehicle, in what conditions they do so, and add in any demands on such vehicle like towing, hauling loads etc.
For the majority of owners whose cars engines loaf at 1500 rpm or so while commuting or running errands, a 0w oil will perform just fine if that engine is specced for it.
Best "summary" post imho!
The point to be made here is that the owner should take into account how they drive their vehicle, in what conditions they do so, and add in any demands on such vehicle like towing, hauling loads etc.
For the majority of owners whose cars engines loaf at 1500 rpm or so while commuting or running errands, a 0w oil will perform just fine if that engine is specced for it.
Best "summary" post imho!
By the time the olm on our 18 CRV is up. The oil will be a 0W16 anyway by the time fuel dilution takes over.
Saw this at Pep Boy's today.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
