New Toyota Camry uses 0W-16 or SAE 16 weight motor

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I love Citgo data sheets...
http://www.technologylubricants.com/MSDS/CITGO/PDS/C500 single visc_pds.pdf
http://www.docs.citgo.com/msds_pi/C10005A.pdf


Now, that's a really neat concept: a 10W monograde that meets the 16 high temperature viscosity specs. That's sort of a thumb in the eye to the SAE for making a big deal out of lower high temperature grades. I bet that a 5W monograde could also be formulated to meet the 16 spec. But it would probably be a full synthetic.


Here's another one...
https://klondikelubricants.com/wp-conten...ils_PDS.pdf.pdf

If it's genuinely not VII enhanced (Newtonian), it should have an HTHS around 2.5.

SG ain't that old a rating.

 

[SonofJoe]

A seems a lot of these 10W HDDOs are typically based around CF/SG plus a few other cats and dogs (some of them utterly meaningless).

Now no-one in their right mind develops an additive pack specifically for a 10W oil as the market for these oil is, in relative terms, miniscule! What generally happens is the DI pack gets developed to cover the Group I 15W40 which is a huge HDDO volume grade. However any formulator with an ounce of wit will set up his engine testing matrix to give you the widest possible viscosity grade read-across. This way, not only do you cover the all important 15W40 position but you also cover grades like 10W 'for free'.

Now a typical SG/CF DI pack might fall out at around 4 to 5% treat rate. However, because it has been built to cover a multi-grade position, it will very likely perform much better than it strictly needs to in a mono-grade (like 10W) simply because there is no 'bad' VII in the oil. Likewise, given that the pack was very likely developed to cover the Group I position, should you blend your 10W oil from Group II or Group III, then that 4 to 5% DI treat will give you a far higher level of oil performance than it was originally conceived to do.

So in summary, some of these lowly, naff 10W oils (but especially the Citgo one), might give you a level of performance way in excess to what is implied by the rating on the can. Neat eh!

 

[userfriendly]

I'm still 6 posts back having my prostate examined vs a drive in the country.

 

[addyguy]

Citgo on their site has a listing for a 0w-16 that they offer.
No need to 'play around' with HD 10w oils...there is this oil availiable.

 

[SilverFusion2010]

Originally Posted By: userfriendly
I'm still 6 posts back having my prostate examined vs a drive in the country.


Tmi friend. Tmi

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Citgo on their site has a listing for a 0w-16 that they offer.
No need to 'play around' with HD 10w oils...there is this oil availiable.



I think you have completely missed the point of this discussion. Why would you use a 0W16 when a 10W16 could be so much better in so many respects? No VII, lower Noack, less inherent need for additive and lower cost with more or less the same fuel economy benefits. What's not to like?

Also, whilst I am very much a sceptic about LSPI affecting today's TGDI engines, I do accept that in the future, as we more to even higher power density engines, protecting against LSPI (or super-knock as it's sometimes called) will be important. At which point I suspect the whole world and his dog will finally wake up to the need for low Noack oils and move away from this ridiculous obsession with 0W oils.

PS - there's nothing inherently wrong with 'playing around'. Some of us based our entire careers on ignoring received wisdom, playing around and following our noses...

 

[turboseize]

Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
This is an interesting question...

All things being equal (same base oil, same VII, same DI) from a Noack perspective, a 10W16 or a 5W16 oil would be better than a 0W16. However I suspect this is viscometrically more complex than in looks. An SAE 16 needs to have a KV100 of between 6.1 and 8.2 cst while at the same time needing to have a minimum HTHS of 2.3 cP. Assuming GF-5 rules apply, then the oil would need to meet a Noack spec of 15% max.

At he bottom end of the range, a 6.1 KV100 monograde oil definitely won't give 2.3 HTHS. I don't know, but I suspect, that something like a Group II fully formulated oil with an 8.2 KV100 might also struggle to meet the 2.3 min HTHS spec because the oil needs a minimum Viscosity Index to make everything work out. You can certainly up the VI with VII polymer but I suspect you would then quickly run foul of the 15% Noack spec. If this is indeed the case, then the answer would be to go synthetic which is fine but as a consequence, the W-rating of the oil would naturally start to drop. At the extreme, I might expect a full PAO SAE 16 monograde to be not far off having the properties of a 0W16 oil.

If anyone knows of anyone selling a SAE 16 oil, can they say who. The nearest I could find was Ravenol's 5W16 which I suspect is a lightly VI treated Group III/PAO mix.


They advertise "vollsynthetisch", so it is at least 80% PAO. Also note NOACK of 7.2%...

http://www.ravenol.de/produkte/verwendun...-sae-5w-16.html

 

[SonofJoe]

Originally Posted By: turboseize
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
This is an interesting question...

All things being equal (same base oil, same VII, same DI) from a Noack perspective, a 10W16 or a 5W16 oil would be better than a 0W16. However I suspect this is viscometrically more complex than in looks. An SAE 16 needs to have a KV100 of between 6.1 and 8.2 cst while at the same time needing to have a minimum HTHS of 2.3 cP. Assuming GF-5 rules apply, then the oil would need to meet a Noack spec of 15% max.

At he bottom end of the range, a 6.1 KV100 monograde oil definitely won't give 2.3 HTHS. I don't know, but I suspect, that something like a Group II fully formulated oil with an 8.2 KV100 might also struggle to meet the 2.3 min HTHS spec because the oil needs a minimum Viscosity Index to make everything work out. You can certainly up the VI with VII polymer but I suspect you would then quickly run foul of the 15% Noack spec. If this is indeed the case, then the answer would be to go synthetic which is fine but as a consequence, the W-rating of the oil would naturally start to drop. At the extreme, I might expect a full PAO SAE 16 monograde to be not far off having the properties of a 0W16 oil.

If anyone knows of anyone selling a SAE 16 oil, can they say who. The nearest I could find was Ravenol's 5W16 which I suspect is a lightly VI treated Group III/PAO mix.


They advertise "vollsynthetisch", so it is at least 80% PAO. Also note NOACK of 7.2%...

http://www.ravenol.de/produkte/verwendun...-sae-5w-16.html



Yes, I'm aware of the Ravenol 5W16 and yes, it has all the characteristics of being a full PAO (with a bit of ester) oil which accounts for the 7.2% Noack. It's good stuff.

However, as ever, the problem with this type of oil is cost and widespread commercial availability. In global terms, the world is still very much locked into cheap Group I/II based engine oils. At a very rough guess, more expensive Group III probably accounts for 15% of global engine oil use and mega-expensive PAO, two tenths of bugger all!

What the world needs is an xW16 oil than is compatible with ordinary people's price expectations and the established global plant capacity. Sorry Ravenol!

 

[4WD]

Good point - and following upgrades getting NOACK down on GII+ can produce good PCMO/HDEO that serves a huge chunk of average personal and commercial end users. And if that helps phase out GI - all ships rise with that tide.

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: paulri
The new Camry manual says that you can use 0w20, but that it should be replaced by 0w16 at the next oil change. I mean, we don't want that thick 0w20 clogging up the piston rings now, do we?

Originally Posted By: FordCapriDriver
0W-20 is the new 20W-50.


thats what my owners manual says about the 5w20....