Supertech now available in 0w16

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 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.


Yes, and I believe Shannow has noted that they were able to get an exception to that limit for these new "super thin" oils?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by 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.


Yes, and I believe Shannow has noted that they were able to get an exception to that limit for these new "super thin" oils?


So it could turn out to be a trade-off of worse "oil mileage" for a miniscule hair more gas mileage. And how does more oil use/burning help with the goal of less emissions - humm. More tail chasing it seems.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
. . .

So it could turn out to be a trade-off of worse "oil mileage" for a miniscule hair more gas mileage. And how does more oil use/burning help with the goal of less emissions - humm. More tail chasing it seems.

I'm still wondering what impact those "super high" Noack numbers will have in "real world" operations. I can't imagine that anyone would be willing to accept the sort of consumption that a 32% Noack would SEEM to imply. It will be very, very interesting to see how this plays out. Strange as it seems, I don't think I can rule out the possibility that in ~10 or so years, I'll be the outdated Luddite clinging firmly to my goopy-over-thick 0w-20. . .

 

[das_peikko]

Which cars specify 0W-16 ?

 

[Gasbuggy]

I would be willing to run this in my cavalier for the sake of research.

 

[OilUzer]

Originally Posted by das_peikko
Which cars specify 0W-16 ?


People who have those cars don't go to Wal-Mart. Not sure why wm is selling it to begin with!

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by das_peikko
Which cars specify 0W-16 ?


Predominantly vehicles operated in a predictable manner, in a predictable market...here's Honda's take on the statistical analysis of operating styles for different markets.

If the "normal" range of utilisation can be clearly defined, then it's so much easier to narrow down and optimise lubricant recommendations.

It works that way in my engineering life also...narrower the typical operating band, the lower the requirement for additional margins....planes have a different safety factor than bridges...

 

[Gokhan]

NOACK is a nonissue. 6 cSt PAO NOACK = 6.4%. 4cSt PAO NOACK < 14%.

0W-8 KV100 < 6.1 cSt. A PAO-based 0W-8 would have NOACK < 10%.

Indeed, M1 0W-16 is PAO-based. TGMO 0W-16 made by Exxon Mobil is GTL-based.

Note that 0W-16, 0W-12, and 0W-8 are likely straight grades with no VII -- an advantage of these oils.

There was an old SAE study from the 1970s in which they tried to fail the bearings using "SAE 10," which is basically 0W-8, and they failed to fail the bearings.

A properly engineered engine will have no problem with 0W-8 HTHSV > 1.7 cP. Note that the water viscosity at room temperature is 1.0 cP; so, it's pretty close.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
NOACK is a nonissue. 6 cSt PAO NOACK = 6.4%. 4cSt PAO NOACK < 14%.

0W-8 KV100 < 6.1 cSt. A PAO-based 0W-8 would have NOACK < 10%.

Indeed, M1 0W-16 is PAO-based. TGMO 0W-16 made by Exxon Mobil is GTL-based.


Yet ALL the 0W20s here tested by PQIA are OVER 10 ???

http://www.pqiamerica.com/June 2014/consolidated 0W-20.html

What on Earth are you on about ?

OK, please explain your rationale for your "non issues" and
Your train of logic has several sections of missing track...and a couple of bridges.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by Gokhan
NOACK is a nonissue. 6 cSt PAO NOACK = 6.4%. 4cSt PAO NOACK < 14%.

0W-8 KV100 < 6.1 cSt. A PAO-based 0W-8 would have NOACK < 10%.

Indeed, M1 0W-16 is PAO-based. TGMO 0W-16 made by Exxon Mobil is GTL-based.
Yet ALL the 0W20s here tested by PQIA are OVER 10 ???

http://www.pqiamerica.com/June 2014/consolidated 0W-20.html

What on Earth are you on about ?

OK, please explain your rationale for your "non issues" and
Your train of logic has several sections of missing track...and a couple of bridges.

Remember what I told you about psychological projection?? Whose logic is missing track if none of the 0W-20 oils tested by PQIA is PAO-based?

Amsoil SS 0W-20 is PAO-based and has 8.5% Noack.

Remove some of the VII from that and you will have 0W-16 with the same Noack. You can probably manage to keep the Noack below 10% even for 0W-8 by rearranging the base stocks and using no VII. Even the 5 cSt PAO has 8.8% Noack.

PS: I need to stop capitalizing "Noack."

 

[Shannow]

Ooops I missed the un notified EDIT between Gokhan's post and the one that he retyped while I was posting...no issue...question still stands.

The after edit stuff
Ravenol 0W16 is clearly monograde per Harman approach...Noack 8.2

Warren's Lubrigold
http://www.warrenoil.com/MSDS-Spec/...old%20FS%20SAE%200W-16%20Motor%20Oil.pdf
has a VI of 160...so clearly ain't no monograde...

And that logical "bridge" from the SAE10 (it was a 10W, so clearly wasn't a 0W8...didn't meet the 0W part), through to 70 percent thicker than water, so must be close...

Look over there...a pig with wings...they are glued on and it's a concrete pig ornament, but it's proof of flying pigs

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by Gokhan
NOACK is a nonissue. 6 cSt PAO NOACK = 6.4%. 4cSt PAO NOACK < 14%.

0W-8 KV100 < 6.1 cSt. A PAO-based 0W-8 would have NOACK < 10%.

Indeed, M1 0W-16 is PAO-based. TGMO 0W-16 made by Exxon Mobil is GTL-based.
Yet ALL the 0W20s here tested by PQIA are OVER 10 ???

http://www.pqiamerica.com/June 2014/consolidated 0W-20.html

What on Earth are you on about ?

OK, please explain your rationale for your "non issues" and
Your train of logic has several sections of missing track...and a couple of bridges.

Remember what I told you about psychological projection?? Whose logic is missing track if none of the 0W-20 oils tested by PQIA is PAO-based?



You included TGMO as Group III as part of your initial post that I quoted...you added a non PAO oil in your statement of fact...and as ALL 0W20s are "synthetic" (as you've stated previously that OEMs specify 0W20 to ensure synthetics, I've not projected anything at all, Dr Freaud)…NONE of the PQIA test oils being below 10% is significant, it's not a projection.

Is the "hive mind" mailing list is so shallow ?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
NOACK is a nonissue. 6 cSt PAO NOACK = 6.4%. 4cSt PAO NOACK < 14%.

0W-8 KV100 < 6.1 cSt. A PAO-based 0W-8 would have NOACK < 10%.

Indeed, M1 0W-16 is PAO-based. TGMO 0W-16 made by Exxon Mobil is GTL-based.

Note that 0W-16, 0W-12, and 0W-8 are likely straight grades with no VII -- an advantage of these oils..


None of the high Noack oils posted above in the chart I provided are PAO-based through. I'm not sure how you so confidently shrug it aside when that factoid is staring you right in the face

The only one with a somewhat sane volatility was the Toyota product, they rest were nuts.

The fact Mobil chose PAO to blend their 0w-16 in no way means that anybody else will and subsequently make it a "non issue".

Looking at some examples:
- Valvoline 0w-16, with a VI of 163 and Noack of 11.4%, it certainly isn't a straight-grade.
- Castrol Edge 0w-16 with a VI of 159 and a pour point of -42C, certainly isn't PAO-based and isn't a straight grade. This is confirmed by the MSDS which shows 75-90% typical hydrotreated base.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by OilUzer
Originally Posted by das_peikko
Which cars specify 0W-16 ?


People who have those cars don't go to Wal-Mart. Not sure why wm is selling it to begin with!

Ummmmmm -- one notable example would be the Toyota Camry!!! But hey, how often do you actually see a Toyota Camry out there on the roads -- it's a real rarity. . .

I'm sure when you work out those numbers, and consider the demographic, potential buyers will almost never be found in a Wal-Mart.

Seriously, here's the language from the 2019 Camry manual:
Originally Posted by 2019 Camry Owner's Manual
Engine oil selection

> 2.5 L 4-cylinder (A25A-FKS) engine

"Toyota Genuine Motor Oil" is used in your Toyota vehicle. Use Toyota approved "Toyota
Genuine Motor Oil" or equivalent to satisfy the following grade and viscosity.

Oil grade: API SN/RC multigrade engine oil Recommended viscosity: SAE 0W-16

 

[FCD]

I will buy some when i can.... to use on my door hinges.

With 0W-16 i doubt the oil pressure gauge would even move off its resting position in either of my cars

 

[PimTac]

If I'm not mistaken doesn't one of the Honda hybrid models recommend 0w16?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by PimTac
If I'm not mistaken doesn't one of the Honda hybrid models recommend 0w16?


Maybe that's how they are dealing with the fuel dilution? LOL! The Noack is high enough that you are constantly having to replenish the oil

Of course they discovered this didn't work in cold climates.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Originally Posted by PandaBear
I can see this being a good oil to blend with 10w40 / 20w50 on close out, it should get you close to 5w30 or 5w20 depends on how you blend them together.


No, it won't get you close to a 5w30 or 5W20 depending on how you blend them together. You'd AT BEST get a 10Wxx or 20Wxx thinned out; the W rating of the oil does not "blend"; there are waxes and other parts of the oil that will begin crystallizing at whatever a 10W/20W normally crystallizes at, and those will cause problems. You simply cannot blend something with a better cold rating and get better cold performance.

I am with ekpolk on this one... yes, NOACK is a data point, and likely valid in it's own world. But let's think about this: NOACK is a test designed to keep a open cup sample of oil at 250* CELSIUS (482*F) for a full HOUR. There is literally no way to duplicate this outside of a racetrack in the US on any vehicle I know of. In addition to this unlikelihood, we know that there are other bad things that start to happen to an oil in an actual engine when the oil temperature exceeds 300*F even for shorter periods which would likely have more catastrophic consequences long before the oil "boiled off" due to NOACK. So, while an oil may indeed lose 32% of its weight when held at 482*F for an hour in an open cup with constant airflow over it, we do not (at least to my knowledge) actually have a valid way to correlate those conditions to that of a "real-world" engine with oil temps less than 200*F and in a nearly closed-loop system (other than the somewhat small PCV flow thru the crankcase).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
A properly engineered engine will have no problem with 0W-8 HTHSV > 1.7 cP. Note that the water viscosity at room temperature is 1.0 cP; so, it's pretty close.


Maybe so in journal bearings if the bearing design is tweaked. But there are lots of parts moving against each other in an engine that are not full hydrodynamic lubrication. As the SwRI engine wear report showed, running 16 vs 30 showed more wear with 16 in many areas. Now do the same test with 12 or 8 oil and you bump wear up again. As mentioned before, as film thickness (MOFT) from viscosity goes down, the film strength (anti-wear additives to mitigate contact wear) has to go up. Doing the latter is less effective to control wear than the former.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by FordCapriDriver
I will buy some when i can.... to use on my door hinges.

With 0W-16 i doubt the oil pressure gauge would even move off its resting position in either of my cars

Well, let's see, when cold, the 0w-16 will be much thicker than a 20w-50 will be when hot. Cold 0w-16, depending upon brand, formulation, etc. should be somewhere around 40 cSt. When hot, a 20w-50, again depending upon the particular product will be at around 20 cSt, give or take a bit. So, yes indeed, if your gauge shows pressure when you're engine is hot with 20w-50, it'll read pressure when cold, if you put a 0w-16 in it. Of course, I wouldn't count on a couple loose old engines from the 70s or 80s being able to handle a modern 0w-16 oil when they get hot, so be careful. . .