Supertech now available in 0w16

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Are engines that people are commonly reporting high oil usage on using "thin" oils aka W20/W16? Could it be possible that long term use of said oils are causing a minute amount of engine wear causing premature oil usage?

The only problem with that, of course, is that oil consumption with engine aging isn't something that started after wide-spread specification of 20wt oils (about twenty years ago now). That's been going on since the beginning of automotive time. IMO, it's more like long term use of the car causes inevitable wear, and in many cases, consumption. That's a different thing, of course, from inappropriate use of incorrect viscosity oil.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Are engines that people are commonly reporting high oil usage on using "thin" oils aka W20/W16? Could it be possible that long term use of said oils are causing a minute amount of engine wear causing premature oil usage?

The only problem with that, of course, is that oil consumption with engine aging isn't something that started after wide-spread specification of 20wt oils (about twenty years ago now). That's been going on since the beginning of automotive time. IMO, it's more like long term use of the car causes inevitable wear, and in many cases, consumption. That's a different thing, of course, from inappropriate use of incorrect viscosity oil.


I've seen many people say on a number of different automotive chat boards that going with a thicker oil did cut back oil consumption. Many variables involved, but if an engine changes the oil consumption rate just by using different oils then it's oil viscosity and formulation related (ie, Noack can have an effect on consumption too).

 

[ka9mnx]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

I've seen many people say on a number of different automotive chat boards that going with a thicker oil did cut back oil consumption. Many variables involved, but if an engine changes the oil consumption rate just by using different oils then it's oil viscosity and formulation related (ie, Noack can have an effect on consumption too).

My Ranger spent most of it's life on 5w20. When it started drinking oil like a sailor, I went with 5w30 and consumption stopped.

If these new oils depend on additive barriers for film strength, what is going to happen when the additives wear away? Are we going back to 3k oil changes?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by PimTac
Using 0w16 in a vehicle specced for it will not lead to disaster or worries despite the grumbling here. Now if 0w16 is run in that 95 Chevy Slapper then yes there will be some adverse effects. That engine was not designed for that oil.

And so the thick vs thin debate rages on.

That is correct. There are however people that will run it in vehicles calling for a 30 or 40 grade oil and telling us of all the benefits/imaginary benefits they've obtained.

Well, I think it was aehaas or someone else who was running 0W-20 in a Ferrari and reporting decent UOA numbers from it?

Anything can run thin oil if it's really cold(below zero) outside. The latest cars needing 0W-16 are using variable output oil pumps, thinner bearing clearances(and Pb-free bearings made from Al-Si-Sn alloys) and other tech in it.

Yes, but as you may or may not know from being here there was also a report or two of good UOA numbers followed by engine failure as well, shortly after the report. It's somewhere in the archives. As far as Dr. Haas IIRC he wasn't driving his Ferrari it was designed to be driven either.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I don't think any of the anti-wear compounds in motor oil is automatically part of the base stock. There are only a handful of additives that are used as anti-wear additives from what I understand, unless someone has come up with some new additive not currently used.

Sorry that's not what I meant. I was getting at the composition of the oil with all the additives, base stocks, and organic / in-organic stuff not see on a VOA.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
Do you really think that Toyota would have staked their reputation on 0w16 in the Camry if it wasn't going to return the reliability that they are supposedly known for?
I highly doubt it especially considering they offer extended warranties for longer than most OE's do.


I'd like to see some VOAs of 0W-16 (and 0W-8) to see what the anti-wear formulation looks like compared to 20 or 30. As the oil gets thinner, the wear control becomes more dependent on the anti-wear additives when parts actually start rubbing harder on each other.


One of the major issues is volatility. The 0w-8, 0w-12 and 0w-16 oils from the OEM's all had insanely high Noack volatilities because of the super light bases used to blend them.

For sure... It would be interesting to see if they ever uses them with single setups for direct injection without the PFI setup.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I don't think any of the anti-wear compounds in motor oil is automatically part of the base stock. There are only a handful of additives that are used as anti-wear additives from what I understand, unless someone has come up with some new additive not currently used.

Sorry that's not what I meant. I was getting at the composition of the oil with all the additives, base stocks, and organic / in-organic stuff not see on a VOA.


What kind of secret anti-wear additives might be used that can't be detected in a VOA beyond what oil formulators currently use?

 

[StevieC]

Ask Molakule... He is the one that told me about not everything showing up in VOA's

 

[wemay]

Two new Camry's on my street and I've seen at least two more in the community. I look at the owners and see moms, dads, husbands and wives, all with kids and zero concern over 15w50 vs 0w8. They drive to and from...for 150-200k miles and trade their reliable Camry in for another one.

That's the real world.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Are engines that people are commonly reporting high oil usage on using "thin" oils aka W20/W16? Could it be possible that long term use of said oils are causing a minute amount of engine wear causing premature oil usage?

The only problem with that, of course, is that oil consumption with engine aging isn't something that started after wide-spread specification of 20wt oils (about twenty years ago now). That's been going on since the beginning of automotive time. IMO, it's more like long term use of the car causes inevitable wear, and in many cases, consumption. That's a different thing, of course, from inappropriate use of incorrect viscosity oil.


I've seen many people say on a number of different automotive chat boards that going with a thicker oil did cut back oil consumption. Many variables involved, but if an engine changes the oil consumption rate just by using different oils then it's oil viscosity and formulation related (ie, Noack can have an effect on consumption too).


Sure, under those circumstances, the lower vis oil is being consumed more quickly than the higher vis oil because at that point, the engine has worn to the point where the engine is allowing that to happen. And at that point, moving to a higher vis oil makes perfect sense. That does not, however, mean that that lower vis oil caused the wear that led to the consumption, in the first place. My 04 Prius was hinting at the beginning of consumption at 200k miles (it consumed M1 AFE, but not EP) -- only ever having used 5w-30 or 0w-30 (the latter being the end of my stash of green GC). It never saw a drop of 20wt oil. Clearly, engines can and do develop the wear sufficient to bring on consumption, even when using the proper grade -- and even when the proper grade is something other than Xw-20.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
Do you really think that Toyota would have staked their reputation on 0w16 in the Camry if it wasn't going to return the reliability that they are supposedly known for?
I highly doubt it especially considering they offer extended warranties for longer than most OE's do.


I'd like to see some VOAs of 0W-16 (and 0W-8) to see what the anti-wear formulation looks like compared to 20 or 30. As the oil gets thinner, the wear control becomes more dependent on the anti-wear additives when parts actually start rubbing harder on each other.


One of the major issues is volatility. The 0w-8, 0w-12 and 0w-16 oils from the OEM's all had insanely high Noack volatilities because of the super light bases used to blend them.

For sure... It would be interesting to see if they ever uses them with single setups for direct injection without the PFI setup.


Honda has, IIRC, but of course they are also the one with the fuel dilution disaster

 

[StevieC]

1.5T, the "T" is for Toilet.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Are engines that people are commonly reporting high oil usage on using "thin" oils aka W20/W16? Could it be possible that long term use of said oils are causing a minute amount of engine wear causing premature oil usage?

The only problem with that, of course, is that oil consumption with engine aging isn't something that started after wide-spread specification of 20wt oils (about twenty years ago now). That's been going on since the beginning of automotive time. IMO, it's more like long term use of the car causes inevitable wear, and in many cases, consumption. That's a different thing, of course, from inappropriate use of incorrect viscosity oil.


I've seen many people say on a number of different automotive chat boards that going with a thicker oil did cut back oil consumption. Many variables involved, but if an engine changes the oil consumption rate just by using different oils then it's oil viscosity and formulation related (ie, Noack can have an effect on consumption too).


Sure, under those circumstances, the lower vis oil is being consumed more quickly than the higher vis oil because at that point, the engine has worn to the point where the engine is allowing that to happen. And at that point, moving to a higher vis oil makes perfect sense. That does not, however, mean that that lower vis oil caused the wear that led to the consumption, in the first place. My 04 Prius was hinting at the beginning of consumption at 200k miles (it consumed M1 AFE, but not EP) -- only ever having used 5w-30 or 0w-30 (the latter being the end of my stash of green GC). It never saw a drop of 20wt oil. Clearly, engines can and do develop the wear sufficient to bring on consumption, even when using the proper grade -- and even when the proper grade is something other than Xw-20.


Hard to say about what caused the wear to the point the engine started using oil. Of course engines are always wearing to some degree regardless of what oil viscosity is used. Who knows, maybe your engine would have started showing signs of oil useage a little earlier than at 200K miles if xW-20 was used instead. Only a very controlled experiment would prove it - like the engine wear study by the SwRI of 16 vs 20 that showed more overall engine and ring wear with 16 which would probably lead to more oil consumption. Obviously nobody here can prove it one way or the other with just anecdotal information. That's why I rely mostly on official engineering studies that use very controlled experimental test methods.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Sure, under those circumstances, the lower vis oil is being consumed more quickly than the higher vis oil because at that point, the engine has worn to the point where the engine is allowing that to happen. And at that point, moving to a higher vis oil makes perfect sense. That does not, however, mean that that lower vis oil caused the wear that led to the consumption, in the first place. My 04 Prius was hinting at the beginning of consumption at 200k miles (it consumed M1 AFE, but not EP) -- only ever having used 5w-30 or 0w-30 (the latter being the end of my stash of green GC). It never saw a drop of 20wt oil. Clearly, engines can and do develop the wear sufficient to bring on consumption, even when using the proper grade -- and even when the proper grade is something other than Xw-20.


Don't forget that it was the drive to low viscosity oils and low tension rings that lead the OEMs to declare that 1qt/1,000 miles is perfectly fine and normal...and the drive for lower P levels as a result of this "normal" consumption.

It's not just worn engines, it's new engines out of the factory in some cases...new unworn engines.

Note this is not commentary on 0W16, or thick/thin, just a am painting the historical picture.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by Shannow
. . .
Don't forget that it was the drive to low viscosity oils and low tension rings that lead the OEMs to declare that 1qt/1,000 miles is perfectly fine and normal...and the drive for lower P levels as a result of this "normal" consumption.

It's not just worn engines, it's new engines out of the factory in some cases...new unworn engines.

Note this is not commentary on 0W16, or thick/thin, just a am painting the historical picture.

Good point. I won't be so reckless or bold (or just plain stupid...) as to try to draw any real conclusions from my 2018 yet, but since it's my first 20wt car, and some of that history you mention is concerning, I've been checking oil twice a week. Thus far, at a whopping 3000 miles, the oil is sitting perfectly at the "full" mark, just where I carefully placed it. At least I don't have a fast bleeder. . . (a Petropheliac???)

I assume that between where we are right now, and "air bearings for everyone," there's a practical limit for how low the viscosities can go. EDIT: as talk of 0w-8 oil is being heard, I give up on where that might be... Again, it would be nice to "level off" at that point for a few years so the engineers could get the issues ironed out, so we don't have, for example, the "1qt/1k is OK" nonsense to contend with. Then perhaps we could start to get some real confidence about where the actual oil use "safety limits" lie for various different types of engines and applications.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
... One of the major issues is volatility. The 0w-8, 0w-12 and 0w-16 oils from the OEM's all had insanely high Noack volatilities because of the super light bases used to blend them.
Why exactly do feel 0W-16 would use a "lighter base" than a corresponding 0W-20?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Good point. I won't be so reckless or bold (or just plain stupid...) as to try to draw any real conclusions from my 2018 yet, but since it's my first 20wt car, and some of that history you mention is concerning, I've been checking oil twice a week. Thus far, at a whopping 3000 miles, the oil is sitting perfectly at the "full" mark, just where I carefully placed it. At least I don't have a fast bleeder. . . (a Petropheliac???)

I assume that between where we are right now, and "air bearings for everyone," there's a practical limit for how low the viscosities can go. EDIT: as talk of 0w-8 oil is being heard, I give up on where that might be... Again, it would be nice to "level off" at that point for a few years so the engineers could get the issues ironed out, so we don't have, for example, the "1qt/1k is OK" nonsense to contend with. Then perhaps we could start to get some real confidence about where the actual oil use "safety limits" lie for various different types of engines and applications.


I think that we are nearing the asymptote...
Some of the Honda (and others) papers that I've read indicate that they are making the bearings larger (diameter and length), and reducing clearances, all of which INCREASE drag, and increase MOFT with thinner oils.

But they seem to be chasing friction in the pistons and ring belt, which seem to have room to go viscosity wise.(*)

Thus I think we are near the end, as bearing protective measures increase drag while chasing reduced drag elsewhere....thus the asymptote comment.

Also, while cams are typically additive responsive to wear, there's a critical viscosity at which wear increases.

(Note for sensitive readers - these are directions from scary papers, that may contain science, and some even contain charts)

(*) truck engine manufacturers are looking at thermal barrier coatings on the cooling jacket in the mid stroke range to locally reduce the viscosity in the high velocity part of the piston stroke while leaving bearings and piston stroke ends back at normal viscosity

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
... One of the major issues is volatility. The 0w-8, 0w-12 and 0w-16 oils from the OEM's all had insanely high Noack volatilities because of the super light bases used to blend them.
Why exactly do feel 0W-16 would use a "lighter base" than a corresponding 0W-20?

Because they do.

Not everybody takes Mobil's approach of using PAO for both of those lubes.

 

[ekpolk]

Holy Smoke! Or maybe I should change that to "Expensive Vapor!"...look at those Noack numbers. I understand that Noack testing is a lab procedure that must be difficult to "translate" to actual behavior in a given engine, but 32%??? Being a bit hyperbolic, does that mean after an hour or so of driving, a third of the oil will have disappeared, and what's left will have un-sheared up to a 40wt??? OK, a lot hyperbolic, but is not 32% Noack still absurd? I know that's not for 0w-16, the specific topic, but those numbers for the 16s in the chart aren't too impressive either. I'm wondering at what point extreme lab-based Noack numbers will translate to unacceptable behavior (high consumption, thickened remaining oil, etc.) in real world operations???

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Holy Smoke! Or maybe I should change that to "Expensive Vapor!"...look at those Noack numbers. I understand that Noack testing is a lab procedure that must be difficult to "translate" to actual behavior in a given engine, but 32%??? Being a bit hyperbolic, does that mean after an hour or so of driving, a third of the oil will have disappeared, and what's left will have un-sheared up to a 40wt??? OK, a lot hyperbolic, but is not 32% Noack still absurd? I know that's not for 0w-16, the specific topic, but those numbers for the 16s in the chart aren't too impressive either. I'm wondering at what point extreme lab-based Noack numbers will translate to unacceptable behavior (high consumption, thickened remaining oil, etc.) in real world operations???


There's probably a good engineering based reason why the Noack limit is currently 15%. Doubt it's some arbitrary number pulled out of the air.