New Ravenol Ultra Fuel Economy 0W-8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill_W said:
If the OM allows any API approved 0w-20 oil but suggests you use their oil but a BITOG poster says a higher viscosity will be better I have to question that without the engineering or science behind it.
Click to expand...
You've been here over 13 years and you haven't seen all the technical information shown from Tribology experts and the controlled testing that shows thinner oil can cause more wear than thicker oil due to decreased HTHS and MOFT? That basic physics of Tribology has always been true, and is still the main factor to keep moving parts separated.

What makes you think the science and test results are all wrong? ... because the engineers striving to meet CAFE in the USA (to save lots of fine money) said to use thinner oil in the OM when other countries use thicker oil in the same exact engine? Seems like a big leap in logic there. And it's been shown 100s of times that the same engines used in other countries specify a whole range of viscosiy based on ambient temperature. Also, it's been shown many times that every modern Toyota OM has a statement that thicker oil will give better engine protection in more severe use conditions. Why would they even put that statement in the OM if thicker oil didn't give added engine protection?

Bill_W said:
Personally I see upping the viscosity above the OM causes trouble with a engine designed to run oil hydraulics and the cooling.
Click to expand...
How so? This has been discussed 100s of times too. Again, a whole range of viscosity is specified for the same engines used in other countries. What problems does that cause? And what about all those engines where thicker oil is specified for track use? If thicker oil was going to cause all kinds of "troubles" why would they specify them for more demanding use conditions?
 
Last edited:
PWMDMD said:
It’s early and I haven’t had my coffee and just spitballing here but…

0.375mpg x 1,000,000 vehicles = 375,000 vehicle miles/gallon. So this change applied to 1,000,000 vehicles is essentially equivalent to propelling 2.5 additional vehicles through an average 150,000 mile life span using the same total gallons of fuel for that 1,000,000 vehicle fleet.

Still seems insignificant.
Click to expand...
Here's the diconnect. It's insignificant to the person driving the car, but it's far from insignificant from the car company getting fined lots of money that hurts their profits because they can't meet CAFE targets. And that profit loss would most likely be passed on to the car buyer through higher cost of the new car sitting on the lot, and/or higher parts costs.
 
ZeeOSix said:
You've been here over 13 years and you haven't seen all the technical information shown from Tribology experts and the controlled testing that shows thinner oil can cause more wear than thicker oil due to decreased HTHS and MOFT? That basic physics of Tribology has always been true, and is still the main factor to keep moving parts separated.

What makes you think the science and test results are all wrong? ... because the engineers striving to meet CAFE in the USA (to save lots of fine money) said to use thinner oil in the OM when other countries use thicker oil in the same exact engine? Seems like a big leap in logic there. And it's been shown 100s of times that the same engines used in other countries specify a whole range of viscosiy based on ambient temperature. Also, it's been shown many times that every modern Toyota OM has a statement that thicker oil will give better engine protection in more severe use conditions. Why would they even put that statement in the OM if thicker oil didn't give added engine protection?


How so? This has been discussed 100s of times too. Again, a whole range of viscosity is specified for the same engines used in other countries. What problems does that cause? And what about all those engines where thicker oil is specified for track use? If thicker oil was going to cause all kinds of "troubles" why would they specify them for more demanding use conditions?
Click to expand...
Maybe what I should do is post the Operator’s Manual. Please forgive me cause I am a bit cranky with a chest cold. (sorry…)
https://www.mazdausa.com/static/manuals/2019/mx5/contents/07030402.html

My focus is the “only use 0w-20… certified API” Only one viscosity. Now you do not know what my OM said, you did not care what other cars the other poster had. Your blanket statement is do not go by the OM, always up the viscosity cause that increases the MOFT. Apologize for the BITOG “expert” comment.
 
Last edited:
ZeeOSix said:
What's your point with the OM?
Click to expand...
I am all for your input but I consider Operators’s manual above your pay grade. If it was just me I would walk away but if you throw in pure CAFE and no engineering or science involved, well I gotta say something. In 2021 Mazda came out most reliable car brand, without your input.
 
Bill_W said:
I am all for your input but I consider Operators’s manual above your pay grade. If it was just me I would walk away but if you throw in pure CAFE and no engineering or science involved, well I gotta say something. In 2021 Mazda came out most reliable car brand, without your input.
Click to expand...
There has been plenty of engineering, science and controlled testing results discussed and shown here for years how HTHS viscosity and MOFT effects wear. Guess you missed all of that over the last 13+ years? Tell us why you don't believe all that technical information.
 
Oh… I got that side. HTHS and MOFT good. But you stated CAFE drives car manufacturers to bare minimum viscosity and puts your car on the edge of damage. What is that plenty of engineering and science to whatever your are talking about? Crankshaft imperfections at thin MOFT would show some bearing damage at least that could be seen with UOA, right?
 
Last edited:
Bill_W said:
Oh… I got that side. HTHS and MOFT good. But you stated CAFE drives car manufacturers to bare minimum viscosity and puts your car on the edge of damage. What is that plenty of engineering and science to whatever your are talking about? Crankshaft imperfections at thin MOFT would show some bearing damage at least that could be seen with UOA, right?
Click to expand...
If you studied the wear testing info, you'd see that when HTHS goes below around 2.5-2.6 cP that some engine component wear rates really start to increase - like piston rings for instance. That's not going to "blow-up" an engine, but it will wear them out faster over the long run. And other factors can have an effect on wear too, like engines that are loaded hard and revved high vs ones that just "tootle" along at low loads and low RPM with thin oil. But if you have more viscosity/HTHS and MOFT headroom, then there is more protection going on to help reduce wear. That's the whole point of running a bit thicker oil, especially in harder use conditions.

If too thin of oil is used under some extreme use conditions, it certainly could damage the engine. Go back and look at that article you posted earlier ( HERE ) in this thread at those bearings they took out of the engine ran on 5W-20 on the dyno when they were testing different bearing designs. You think they would have looked different if they ran xW-30 and xW-40 oil. I do think they would.

Guess you've missed all the technical information about UOA too, and the fact that they can't really tell you much except for trend data on the same engine. Lots of the wear debris it too large to even be measured by a UOA.
 
Last edited:
ZeeOSix said:
If you studied the wear testing info, you'd see that when HTHS goes below around 2.5-2.6 cP that some engine component wear rates really start to increase - like piston rings for instance. That's not going to "blow-up" an engine, but it will wear them out faster over the long run. And other factors can have an effect on wear too, like engines that are loaded hard and revved high vs ones that just "tootle" along at low loads and low RPM with thin oil. But if you have more viscosity/HTHS and MOFT headroom, then there is more protection going on to help reduce wear. That's the whole point of running a bit thicker oil, especially in harder use conditions.

If too thin of oil is used under some extreme use conditions, it certainly could damage the engine. Go back and look at that article you posted earlier in this thread at those bearings they took out of the engine ran on 5W-20 on the dyno when they were testing different bearing designs. You think they would have looked different if they ran xW-30 and xW-40 oil. I do think they would.

Guess you've missed all the technical information about UOA too, and the fact that they can't really tell you much except for trend data on the same engine. Lots of the wear debris it too large to even be measured by a UOA.
Click to expand...
Thanks for mentioning that article, thought it had some good info.
The article was posted to show that bearing damage will be done in a very short time when contact is made. Each engine is different. For the article the purpose was like you said to cause damage. They were run at low RPM with heavy load but also taken up past peak for 14 times for each test that lasted for 3 hours. Guess my point is the car manufacturers also test their engines under extreme conditions. The science to back up the engineering. I trust the OM when it says “only use 0w-20”. My Miata has run since purchase on it and does not loose any oil between oil change.

What I liked about the article is it not only showed the damage to the bearing but the UOA to show the wear metals.

Here is some UOA using TGMO 0w-20
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/tgmo-0w-20-sp-2019-miata-4500-miles.354004/#post-6097613

Notice no tin or lead PPM…
 
Last edited:
Bill_W said:
Thanks for mentioning that article, thought it had some good info.
The article was posted to show that bearing damage will be done in a very short time when contact is made. Each engine is different. For the article the purpose was like you said to cause damage. They were run at low RPM with heavy load but also taken up past peak for 14 times for each test that lasted for 3 hours. Guess my point is the car manufacturers also test their engines under extreme conditions. The science to back up the engineering. I trust the OM when it says “only use 0w-20”. My Miata has run since purchase on it and does not loose any oil between oil change.

What I liked about the article is it not only showed the damage to the bearing but the UOA to show the wear metals.
Click to expand...
But again, the side point is those bearings would have survived better with thicker oil. Yes, they used thin oil to make the damage show up. Thicker oil probably wouldn't have shown them the data they were looking for. And that damaged happened in a pretty short time, which just goes to show how much bearing contact was going on because of low to zero MOFT.

Like I've said many times in these discussions, using the "recommended" oil will work for most people most of the time while just tootling around on the roads. The whole point of these discussions is to show that a grade higher will give added protection from wear. IMO, there is no drawback from doing that except to lose a little bit of fuel mileage if you conducted a very controlled test to show that.

I didn't see in that Mazda OM you linked (post #163) where it said that 0W-20 was "required" or to "only use 0W-20" or else your warranty is void. It said: "Only use SAE 0W-20 oil “Certified For Gasoline Engines” by the American Petroleum Institute (API)." It also said: "Mazda Genuine 0W-20 Oil is required to achieve optimum fuel economy." I think they are focused on the "Certified For Gasoline Engines" part since they specify 5W-30 for the same engine in other regions. And obviously shooting for CAFE points when only recommending 0W-20 which is the oil they certified the engine with. It's a strict requirement from the EPA/CAFE that they manufactuer must "push/convince" the vehicle owner to use the thin oil the engine was tested with.

Why would they recommend/specify 5W-30 in other regions and only 0W-20 in the USA? One reason: CAFE.
 
Last edited:
Zeros for tin and lead on UOA. No loss of oil between OCI. I am on PUP 0w-20 now. I know a few Mazda track guys that use 0w-20 although many use 5w30. The track guys that use 0w-20 says the engine oil temps are better.
 
Bill_W said:
https://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=752231&highlight=0w20

M.C.Calico post on #15… He teaches mechanics. Very smart guy.
Click to expand...
LoL ... did you read the rest of the thread. Pretty much everyone else posting in that thread wouldn't use 0W-20 on the track. You sure like to latch-on to the 3 sigma stuff and try to use it as gospel. ;)

Reminds me of some guy on YouTube that used 5W-20 on the track and boasted how his UOA was so good. Then his engine started making noises and he tore into the engine and looked at the bearings that were pretty much trashed. I even made a comment in one if his YT videos that he was asking for problems if he used too thin oil for track days. So the UOA gave him zero information on what was actually going on. The wear debris was probably way too big to be measured by the UOA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
Shell GTL oil (Helix Ultra) with bad specs compared to PAO oil
Replies
17
Views
2K
Triple_Se7en
cammyfive79
If CAFE/stringent fuel economy/emissions requirements didn't exist....would 0W-8/16/20 exist?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
kschachn
I
Which of these 4 Ravenol 5w-30 oils should I choose?
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
SureshR
S
Sorry, Mobil 1 0w8 is not for retail sale in Canada
Replies
6
Views
806
Zee09
P
Oil recommendation for high mileage Jeep G. Cherokee 4.7L with limited selection of brands and types
Replies
12
Views
848
Carlostrece
Back
Top Bottom