Mobil1 0w16 AFE 5015 miles, '07 Dodge Dakota 3.7L

[The Critic]

You didn't answer my question. Please explain the importance or lack thereof for TBN a bit better. I genuinely want to know. If it is no longer relevant as you say, then I don't want to use it as a determining factor in oil choice.

If you don't want to answer, that's fine. However, if that is the case, then please don't come in to my posts and tell me TBN is becoming less relevant. I get it. You think that. There is not reason to keep repeating it to me. If you can't explain why, then I don't care what you think.

It was a staff member on this site who alluded to that comment, not the person you are targeting.

 

[wemay]

Eh, not quite. Going thinner than specified carries with it significantly more risk than going thicker and of course UOA's don't really tell us how an engine wears beyond potentially letting us know that something dramatic is taking place. Yes, the commentary on some of this is entertaining, but the aforementioned is why I typically don't comment on wear rates and look more for contamination and fuel or abnormalities.

I'm not arguing that I'd do it, nor that I'd recommend it. That's why I started the post with "in a vacuum ".

 

[FZ1]

Yeah, it was Pennzoil Platinum 0w20

Again, there are only two mechanisms of viscosity loss:
1. Mechanical shearing of the VII polymers in a multigrade that results in the oil heading back towards the viscosity of the base oils
2. Fuel dilution, which is exactly what it sounds like. Gas/diesel are thinner than oil, so ingress into the sump is going to reduce viscosity.

If the oil has little to no VII, there's nothing to shear so then our mechanism would be fuel dilution. The flashpoint has dropped about 20F, which suggests a bit of fuel, but not a massive amount. There may be a bit of oxidative thickening of the base oil (which is normal) that has cancelled out the small amount of fuel dilution.

And yes, it's entirely possible for an oil not to thin much, if any, in service. This is application dependant. Certain designs are much harder on oil and more inclined to shear VII polymers than others. On top of that, there are different types of VII polymers, some of which are massively more shear resistant than others. Many engines also don't fuel dilute, particularly port injected ones that aren't short tripped.

What's more amusing to see is a longer run on an oil like Redline or AMSOIL where there's no fuel and the oil just increases in viscosity from oxidation.

O.K. Here's the answer. The OP states he used PP 0-20 on the previous run. PP 0-20 starts at a vis of 8.3. The OP runs it 4000 miles and the exit vis is 7.50 so the oil thinned about .80 during the 4000 mile run. A thinning vis reduction which seems about a "normal" vis drop. Further, the report shows 0 oil usage from the 0-20 run and he burned 12 oz. on the 0-16 run. The 0-16 starting vis is 7.2 and is run 6800 miles and the exit vis is 7.15 indicating only a .05 vis reduction in 2800 more miles. Really??? No the 0-16 lost at least .80 vis like the 0-20 and is now thickening back up to 7.15 exit vis. So, as I correctly stated, the 0-16 oil is too thin for the OP. The OP needs to run a 0-20 for sufficient MOFT in this case so it won't be so thin it burns and starts to thicken. The worst thing the OP can do is to run a too thin oil to 10000 miles.

 

[Artem]

@FZ1 where are you getting 6,800 miles from? Your maths seem a bit… off. Unless I’m missing something.

 

[OVERKILL]

O.K. Here's the answer.

But it's not the answer. Again, if you understood what I've written, you wouldn't be authoring this reply.

The OP states he used PP 0-20 on the previous run. PP 0-20 starts at a vis of 8.3. The OP runs it 4000 miles and the exit vis is 7.50 so the oil thinned about .80 during the 4000 mile run. A thinning vis reduction which seems about a "normal" vis drop.

There is no "normal" vis drop. Different oils behave differently in service, different types of VII polymers are used by different manufacturers, some of these are significantly more shear resistant than others. On top of that, different VOLUMES of VII polymers are used based on the blender's selection of base oils and their viscosity. You are trying to dramatically over-simplify the subject and, in doing so, ultimately just confusing yourself.

Further, the report shows 0 oil usage from the 0-20 run and he burned 12 oz. on the 0-16 run.

Oil consumption has nothing to do with change in viscosity. A thinner oil will be more likely to get past the rings and consumed. Add the fact that the 0w-16 also had a much lower flash point and it's easy to see why more of it might disappear.

The 0-16 starting vis is 7.2 and is run 6800 miles and the exit vis is 7.15 indicating only a .05 vis reduction in 2800 more miles. Really???

Yes, it is absolutely possible for this oil not to experience mechanical shear if it has little to no VII polymers in it. The fact that it is almost entirely PAO-based is another big clue in that department, which I've already pointed out.

HOWEVER, the presence of at least some fuel (the slight drop in flashpoint, though that may be just be from service, we'd need a UOA with GC to know for sure) also points to the likelihood of some oxidative thickening also taking place to offset that.

No the 0-16 lost at least .80 vis like the 0-20 and is now thickening back up to 7.15 exit vis.

And you are just completely pulling that out of your posterior. The 0w-20 was likely blended with significantly more VII and has actually experienced some viscosity loss via mechanical shear. We can infer this from the VI of 182 that the product has. On top of that, a flashpoint of 400 again shows the presence of fuel, as the virgin flashpoint is cited at 204C via D93 (Blackstone uses D92) which means virgin FP was around 440F if we were to have it tested in D92.

So, as I correctly stated, the 0-16 oil is too thin for the OP. The OP needs to run a 0-20 for sufficient MOFT in this case so it won't be so thin it burns and starts to thicken. The worst thing the OP can do is to run a too thin oil to 10000 miles.

The OP has already deviated significantly from the spec viscosity and my clarification of the above is not an endorsement of the continued use of 0w-16 in this application, it is simply the explanation of the mechanisms in play with respect to viscosity loss, shear, fuel dilution, oxidative thickening, and how those things all play into each other in UOA's. Starting off by using Blackstone is already hobbling yourself because the fuel % value is going to be useless, and fuel is the primary driver of viscosity loss in most applications.

The OP is aware that this oil is "too thin". He also doesn't seem to care. Again, that's not an endorsement, just the reality of the exchange as it has played-out thus far.

 

[FZ1]

@FZ1 where are you getting 6,800 miles from? Your maths seem a bit… off. Unless I’m missing something.

@FZ1 where are you getting 6,800 miles from? Your maths seem a bit… off. Unless I’m missing something.

Sorry, on the total miles. You are right it was 5000. I was thinking about a previous report. I'm confident in my observation on this. What do you think?

 

[FZ1]

But it's not the answer. Again, if you understood what I've written, you wouldn't be authoring this reply.

There is no "normal" vis drop. Different oils behave differently in service, different types of VII polymers are used by different manufacturers, some of these are significantly more shear resistant than others. On top of that, different VOLUMES of VII polymers are used based on the blender's selection of base oils and their viscosity. You are trying to dramatically over-simplify the subject and, in doing so, ultimately just confusing yourself.

Oil consumption has nothing to do with change in viscosity. A thinner oil will be more likely to get past the rings and consumed. Add the fact that the 0w-16 also had a much lower flash point and it's easy to see why more of it might disappear.

Yes, it is absolutely possible for this oil not to experience mechanical shear if it has little to no VII polymers in it. The fact that it is almost entirely PAO-based is another big clue in that department, which I've already pointed out.

HOWEVER, the presence of at least some fuel (the slight drop in flashpoint, though that may be just be from service, we'd need a UOA with GC to know for sure) also points to the likelihood of some oxidative thickening also taking place to offset that.

And you are just completely pulling that out of your posterior. The 0w-20 was likely blended with significantly more VII and has actually experienced some viscosity loss via mechanical shear. We can infer this from the VI of 182 that the product has. On top of that, a flashpoint of 400 again shows the presence of fuel, as the virgin flashpoint is cited at 204C via D93 (Blackstone uses D92) which means virgin FP was around 440F if we were to have it tested in D92.

The OP has already deviated significantly from the spec viscosity and my clarification of the above is not an endorsement of the continued use of 0w-16 in this application, it is simply the explanation of the mechanisms in play with respect to viscosity loss, shear, fuel dilution, oxidative thickening, and how those things all play into each other in UOA's. Starting off by using Blackstone is already hobbling yourself because the fuel % value is going to be useless, and fuel is the primary driver of viscosity loss in most applications.

The OP is aware that this oil is "too thin". He also doesn't seem to care. Again, that's not an endorsement, just the reality of the exchange as it has played-out thus far.

The point is the vis is going to drop more than .05 on a 0-16 oil over 5000 miles. It could be .80 it could .50, it could be .30 but the vis drop is not going to be .05 over 5000 miles. Pick 10 random reports at 5000 miles and the vis drop is going to be more than .05. Show it to me. I said random. Look, you are over thinking here. I am making a big picture observation based on big picture data ( the report). You are defending your post by attempting to micro explain data that is only big picture explainable. My original observation is big picture correct. The 0-16 oil is too thin for the OP.

 

[Ronin73]

It was a staff member on this site who alluded to that comment, not the person you are targeting.

No, it wasn't. I quoted him directly from a post to me in another thread. I will be glad to show you.

 

[1BadManVan]

The point is the vis is going to drop more than .05 on a 0-16 oil over 5000 miles. It could be .80 it could .50, it could be .30 but the vis drop is not going to be .05 over 5000 miles. Pick 10 random reports at 5000 miles and the vis drop is going to be more than .05. Show it to me. I said random. Look, you are over thinking here. I am making a big picture observation based on big picture data ( the report). You are defending your post by attempting to micro explain data that is only big picture explainable. My original observation is big picture correct. The 0-16 oil is too thin for the OP.

Show us reports of a 80% PAO based oil UOA’s and then get back to us. They are very few and far between, and overkills explained many times over that’s the biggest factor in it retaining its viscosity. For some reason you seem determined to ignore that fact.

 

[IndyFan]

O.K. Here's the answer. The OP states he used PP 0-20 on the previous run. PP 0-20 starts at a vis of 8.3. The OP runs it 4000 miles and the exit vis is 7.50 so the oil thinned about .80 during the 4000 mile run. A thinning vis reduction which seems about a "normal" vis drop. Further, the report shows 0 oil usage from the 0-20 run and he burned 12 oz. on the 0-16 run. The 0-16 starting vis is 7.2 and is run 6800 miles and the exit vis is 7.15 indicating only a .05 vis reduction in 2800 more miles. Really??? No the 0-16 lost at least .80 vis like the 0-20 and is now thickening back up to 7.15 exit vis. So, as I correctly stated, the 0-16 oil is too thin for the OP. The OP needs to run a 0-20 for sufficient MOFT in this case so it won't be so thin it burns and starts to thicken. The worst thing the OP can do is to run a too thin oil to 10000 miles.

One big problem with that. Unless he did a VOA from this batch of oil, we really don't know what the starting vis was. I don't know if I've ever seen a VOA where the tested vis exactly matched the published vis. There are batch variances and formulas change usually more often than pds sheets are updated. The Mobil 1 VOA's I've seen have always been thinner than their PDS data, in my experience.

 

[The Critic]

One big problem with that. Unless he did a VOA from this batch of oil, we really don't know what the starting vis was. I don't know if I've ever seen a VOA where the tested vis exactly matched the published vis. There are batch variances and formulas change usually more often than pds sheets are updated. The Mobil 1 VOA's I've seen have always been thinner than their PDS data, in my experience.

FWIW, my VOA of M1 0W-16 was 7.0 cSt.

Mobil 1 SAE 0W-16 VOA

This sample was taken from a 5-qt jug purchased at WM in 3/2019.

bobistheoilguy.com

 

[himemsys]

I don't know if I've ever seen a VOA where the tested vis exactly matched the published vis. There are batch variances and formulas change usually more often than pds sheets are updated.

I did a few recent VOAs where the viscosity was very close. Castrol EDGE HM 5W30 spec'd at 9.9, Blackstone tested it at 9.83. Valvoline MaxLife 5W20 150K spec'd at 8.8, Blackstone tested it at 8.77. Castrol EDGE 0W20 spec'd at 8.18, Blackstone tested it at 8.12. Interestingly, the latest PQIA test of the EDGE 0W20 showed a viscosity of 8.6.

 

[IndyFan]

I did a few recent VOAs where the viscosity was very close. Castrol EDGE HM 5W30 spec'd at 9.9, Blackstone tested it at 9.83. Valvoline MaxLife 5W20 150K spec'd at 8.8, Blackstone tested it at 8.77. Castrol EDGE 0W20 spec'd at 8.18, Blackstone tested it at 8.12. Interestingly, the latest PQIA test of the EDGE 0W20 showed a viscosity of 8.6.

Mobil 1 seems to be the one that most often comes in thinner. Those you posted are impressive and as close as I've seen. Probably within the margin of error of the testing method.

 

[Oliveoil2]

We should be thanking the OP for his ballsy use of 0w/16 in an older engine. Great experiment! Doesn’t seem like it hurt anything! I’m wondering if his mpg increased?

 

[OVERKILL]

The point is the vis is going to drop more than .05 on a 0-16 oil over 5000 miles. It could be .80 it could .50, it could be .30 but the vis drop is not going to be .05 over 5000 miles.

You keep stating that an oil absolutely must lose viscosity over an OCI. I've taken the effort to explain to you why that is not always the case. I can explain that to you, but I cannot understand it for you. I believe we've hit that point in this conversation.

Pick 10 random reports at 5000 miles and the vis drop is going to be more than .05. Show it to me. I said random. Look, you are over thinking here. I am making a big picture observation based on big picture data ( the report). You are defending your post by attempting to micro explain data that is only big picture explainable. My original observation is big picture correct. The 0-16 oil is too thin for the OP.

You are over-simplifying because you want to be right, not because you want to understand. 0w-16 is a very new grade and this particular example is almost straight PAO. You'll find very few UOA's on this board where people have run oils that have basically no VII in them. I'm not defending anything, I'm simply explaining why viscosity loss isn't some universal constant like you incessantly claim and its absence, with lubricants that have little to no VII in them, shouldn't be surprising if there isn't also fuel driving down viscosity.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Wow mix this PAO masterpiece with some M1 0W40 FS to make a Super oil.

Who's up first ?

p.s.: Unless I missed it I am surprised no one asked the OP how the engine sounded on this lube.

 

[OVERKILL]

The point is the vis is going to drop more than .05 on a 0-16 oil over 5000 miles. It could be .80 it could .50, it could be .30 but the vis drop is not going to be .05 over 5000 miles. Pick 10 random reports at 5000 miles and the vis drop is going to be more than .05. Show it to me.

Instead of doing random, I went looking for some oils that I expected would have little to no VII in them.

- HPL 0w-20:
quoting the OP from that thread:

KV100 is 8.5 cSt indicating no oxidative thickening nor shearing.

2012 Mustang - HPL BAS Racing 0W-20 - 10,351 Miles

There was some discussion on here last summer about the ability of a racing oil to go 10,000 miles on the street. It was part of a larger discussion about running lower viscosity oils than the OEM recommendation. I reached out to @High Performance Lubricants with an idea, we discussed it a bit...

bobistheoilguy.com

- Ravenol VSE 0w-20:

Ravenol VSE 0/20 (VW 508), 9,535 miles, 2019 VW Jetta 1,4t (TBN, PC)

Virgin visc is 8.3cSt, Blackstone got 8.33, well within the margin of error for the test.

- AMSOIL SS 0w-20:

Amsoil SS 0w20, ~6000 miles, 2020 Jeep Gladiator 36000 miles

Below is the OCA using Amsoil SS 0w20 for about 6k miles in extreme terrain towing a 5000 pound trailer in mountains, desert and extreme cold/heat. I’m most curious on why the viscosity is off. The higher silicon can be attributed to changing the oil pan and the silicone that was used to make...

bobistheoilguy.com

This is an amusing one, it's a short run (6,000 miles) but the oil didn't lose any viscosity, rather, it shows a touch of oxidative thickening, being 9.3cSt vs 8.8cSt as spec'd.

- HPL 5w-20:

Dodge Durango 3.6L - HPL 5w-20 - 5,000 Miles on oil

This is a sample pulled from my Durango 3.6L with 117,000 miles total and 5,000 miles on the oil. The oil is HP 5w-20 by High Performance Lubricants in Manteno, IL. This oil is intended for extended drain intervals. It's not inexpensive, but it's clear that it holds up very well. I will sample...

bobistheoilguy.com

Virgin spec is 8.75cSt, UOA shows 8.8cSt, so no change, well within the margin of error for the lab.

- Redline 5w-20:

Red Line 5w20 - 7,000 miles - Dodge Ram

Bizarre comments from Red Line. I sent this to Dave and also messaged Red Line on FB. The response I received back on FB is really bizarre. Have a look. I asked this question before: Assume Red Line or any boutique brand works with an additive supplier and buys an additive package. They then...

bobistheoilguy.com

Virgin spec is supposed to be 9.0cSt, but on this 7,100 mile run it only oxidized (the HEMI isn't a known diluter) to 11.80cSt!

- AMSOIL SS 0w-20:

Amsoil SS 0w20, 8500mi, Jeep Grand Cherokee 3.6, 19k mi.

OLM at 5%. Fram Ultra Cartridge filter. 10 months. Same oil with Amsoil EaO filter went in. I had a magnetic drain plug on, when I loosened it it got the magnet stuck to the side of the drain hole. The oil was coming out at a manageable rate so I filled the sample bottle from there. I wonder...

bobistheoilguy.com

Virgin spec is 8.8cSt, UOA show 8.55cSt, likely a little bit of fuel.

- Redline 5w-20:

Redline 5w-20 / 9,700mi on oil / 2014 5.7 Hemi Durango R/T

Here’s my first UOA on my Durango with a relatively long oil run. I have seen poor performance (low TBN) of Redline in other reports and thought I would post this. I’m completely happy with the job it’s doing to protect this engine. The oil run was also over a two year period, as I don’t drive...

bobistheoilguy.com

Visc spec is 9.0cSt, UOA shows 9.78cSt, indicating some oxidative thickening.

- HPL 0w-8:

2022 Honda Insight EX HPL PP 0W8 12,724 Miles

Virgin is 5.62cSt, UOA shows 6.3cSt, indicating some oxidative thickening. If you look at his previous reports, the thickening only seemed to start with this latest report, previous showed stable viscosity of 5.7cSt, well within the margin for lab error.


Again, none of this is an ENDORSEMENT for the OP to run a 0w-16 in an application that doesn't call for it. It's simply an explanation as to why there may be little to no observed viscosity loss with certain lubricants in certain applications.

There will be UOA's of this same oil with more fuel dilution that will show considerable viscosity loss. We may see some in the future where we see significant oxidative thickening, as observed with some of the other oils above. It all comes down to how the lubricant is formulated, operating conditions, and how the application is on oil.

What would be more valuable is if a future UOA is done with Polaris/OAI that uses GC for fuel so that we have a proper understanding of what role fuel is playing. If fuel dilution is at a level that makes it relevant, then we know that it is being offset by oxidative thickening, which is what is keeping the oil right around its original viscosity.

 

[Pazuzu]

We should be thanking the OP for his ballsy use of 0w/16 in an older engine. Great experiment! Doesn’t seem like it hurt anything! I’m wondering if his mpg increased?

No, I didn't notice anything. It did go up recently after replacing the plugs and switching to ethanol-free gas.

 

[FZ1]

One big problem with that. Unless he did a VOA from this batch of oil, we really don't know what the starting vis was. I don't know if I've ever seen a VOA where the tested vis exactly matched the published vis. There are batch variances and formulas change usually more often than pds sheets are updated. The Mobil 1 VOA's I've seen have always been thinner than their PDS data, in my experience.

Sure, but I'm not attempting to be precise, here. The data doesn't allow precision. I'm just saying that that the 0-16 in the OP's 0-20 spec'd truck with 98000 miles on it appears too thin in his application. I think half the posters on this thread agree that the 0-16 is too thin in this example. The Op is now going thicker, is he not? JMO

 

[DirectRejection]

Excellent discussion y'all. This is "gettin' real about motor oil."

Re OVERKILL's new post with various very thin motor oils, I would like to add in three variables, on my 12k mile run with HPL PP 0W8 in my former Insight. The engine was becoming more broken in, the ester plating was in play, and my driving was more spirited (vs previous mild hypermiling.) All else was quite consistent.