Hello there. Before I even start, I realize I should buy whatever is cheapest at Walmart and use that. Anyhow, I am using Schaeffer Oil Supreme 9000 0w-16 oil on my new 2025 Toyota Rav4. In my past I have used the Schaeffer products and liked the results. Now, I noticed something weird on their PDS on this oil. The viscosity @ 100 degrees C is listed as 6.1 to 7.2. I have never seen this as a variable number on other engine oil data sheets. What is it, Schaeffer can't make up their mind, everybody else in the entire world is wrong, and they are the only oil company that is doing this test right? I am just confused, I guess. Here is a link the Schaeffer 0w-16 TDS https://www.schaefferoil.com/documents/364-9016-td.pdf Thoughts and opinions would be appreciated.
Schaeffer oil oddity
- Thread starter GI_GRIFF
- Start date
For a given grade, it's actually a range. For xW16 grade that range is 6.1-7.2 cSt. I have seen different companies report it as a single number, as well as a range.
Blending lubricants with a variety of base oils and additives, you rarely get the exact same number each and every time.
Blending lubricants with a variety of base oils and additives, you rarely get the exact same number each and every time.
OK, I guess I didn't realize this. Thanks
Any ESP flavor will save you some money and your engine will be happier
Patman
Staff member
Someone correct me if I’m mistaken but I feel like the variation would be much smaller than they are saying here. I feel like the way they formulate oils these days is more precise so that viscosity variation might only be 0.2 or 0.3 at most. When we see VOAs here using one of the labs that actually has accurate measurements, the viscosity is usually pretty close to what the manufacturer advertised. I know that all of the VOAs that I had done in the past with Wearcheck were very close to what the oil manufacturers claimed.
Plus PDS are only typical values based on who knows what. Sometimes it’s only based on what a license or approval requires (Castrol) other times it may be values that are averaged over many production lots or only one. Those values are not definitive for any particular container of oil that you may purchase as long as they fall within the range that’s allowed by the grade.
Yes. "Typical" is no more accurate than providing a range. It is just another reason the whole oil company written specification comparison is a LOT less scientific than many people assume.
Comparing typicals, comparing VOAs, comparing OEM engine specs even (especially using a spec which your engine isn't), comparing single UOAs - it's fun, and it won't necessarily get you a "bad" oil, but still all these are things that give some kind of good feeling I suppose, but it's unknown if the oil is best for that application - as in NOT really hard science that any oil in use is the best, or 3rd best or worst.
This will make some folks angry, and should not discourage people, but I think it's a conclusion that can be drawn.
Comparing typicals, comparing VOAs, comparing OEM engine specs even (especially using a spec which your engine isn't), comparing single UOAs - it's fun, and it won't necessarily get you a "bad" oil, but still all these are things that give some kind of good feeling I suppose, but it's unknown if the oil is best for that application - as in NOT really hard science that any oil in use is the best, or 3rd best or worst.
This will make some folks angry, and should not discourage people, but I think it's a conclusion that can be drawn.
Similar threads
