THE DRIVE TOWARD THINNING ENGINE OILS

They are gonna get a wake up call as many of these cars have turbochargers and when you start adding boost or parts the oem oil isn't going to work. As far as I have driven and the fact that I definitely get the oil up to temperature brings me to always use a superior oil with a higher performance standard. I'm not leaving any vehicle stock,not driving under 75 mph and not settling on a quart of oil from Walmart to take me the distances I wanna go. The 8w and 16w belong in a bottle of CLP Breakfree,not a car.
 
If some manufacturers recommend xW-20 for normal use and xW-50 for track use, they must believe they are close to that hard stop already for those engines using a 20...

Spot on. Even the new Mazda that uses 0w20 gets moved over to 5w30 Torco after a turbo and exhaust are added.
Can't get myself to leave a 0w20 in a car with forced induction except right now with redline 0w20 in our CR-V. If a downpipe and a tune get added it's going to 0w30 or 5w30. Seeing as all the same cars in Europe seem to run a 30 wt tells me there is some room for a tad thicker.
 
I have used 20 wt oils for years now in DD Fords with over 500K in my last three. Engines show no sign of wear, sound great, are very clean, and oil consumption has not increased.

One persons anecdotal evidence does not prove much of anything.

Thin oils are CAFE driven, not longevity driven, no matter how hard some want to belive otherwise.
 
To imagine the freighter or turboed something that cannot yet run on the new universal grade of 0W-20 is anecdotal. In general there's the 0W-20 now and there's the 0W-16, 0W-8 or below for the fuel efficient https://oil-club.de/index.php?thread/8261-ravenol-efe-0w-16-honda-cr-v-v-hybrid-2-0-8-700km/

I'd say it's still questionable if those on 0W-16 will ever see as much snake oil and changism added for mollification as we're seeing it done with those on old xW-40 Ester-PAO-Tungsten elixirs.
 
Are you saying this all has to stop somewhere?

Absolutely- the basic equation of survivability of a machine is Life= load times speed

Everything else is a drill down affecting 1 or both of the above.

Lubrication is just a "spacer" between the 2.

So, in general terms, as size decreases ( lets say in both dimension and mass) and say a standard payload ( cargo load)..

The experienced loading on the moving parts increases relative to load and speed.

In order for the machine to survive, you either have to make the parts stronger or reduce the COF ( both really)

Oil doesn't really do anything but reduce friction by separation of parts to a degree ( full separation or partial )- in doing that the oil is subject to mechanical and thermal forces.

The point will come where the film strength ( regardless of its thickness) will not overcome the forces against it OR
The film strength will hold but the structure of the material will fail due to the stresses on it.

Where that point is for both is a moving scale based on a number of conditions but its there for both and unless more elements are added to the table, nothing is going to change that.
 
Absolutely- the basic equation of survivability of a machine is Life= load times speed

Everything else is a drill down affecting 1 or both of the above.

Lubrication is just a "spacer" between the 2.

So, in general terms, as size decreases ( lets say in both dimension and mass) and say a standard payload ( cargo load)..

The experienced loading on the moving parts increases relative to load and speed.

In order for the machine to survive, you either have to make the parts stronger or reduce the COF ( both really)

Oil doesn't really do anything but reduce friction by separation of parts to a degree ( full separation or partial )- in doing that the oil is subject to mechanical and thermal forces.

The point will come where the film strength ( regardless of its thickness) will not overcome the forces against it OR
The film strength will hold but the structure of the material will fail due to the stresses on it.

Where that point is for both is a moving scale based on a number of conditions but its there for both and unless more elements are added to the table, nothing is going to change that.

Yeah but... Mobil 1! lol
 
Even if the dreadful 16w oil becomes common, the quality and cost will have to go up significantly. I'd say a 8 qt sump would need to be the new norm. On the bright side is maybe then the can just make grp 4/5 oils and do away with the rest🤔. I really doubt car manufacturers will have any of those "lifetime" warranty on their cars when this all takes shape. Remember when 5w20 synthetic blend was the new kid on the block and then came 0w20 and it's high costs to consumers? They raised hell about the cost and so on. Now imagine it all over again with another oil,another cost gimmick at the service shops/dealer. Apparently these oils have been doing this in Japan for quite sometime. However, they don't have many miles on them as the government makes it too difficult with all the emission demands and such. Probably why I was able to find low mileage B16 motors with low miles. I'd like to see these engines after 200,000 on this 16w sewing machine oil. You won't get this far on 8 or 16w oil on factory internal parts.
 

Attachments

  • 20201113_160338.jpg
    20201113_160338.jpg
    77 KB · Views: 26
  • 20201113_160344.jpg
    20201113_160344.jpg
    74.3 KB · Views: 26
One persons anecdotal evidence does not prove much of anything.

Thin oils are CAFE driven, not longevity driven, no matter how hard some want to belive otherwise.
Money is no object for me and I could use any oil in the world, so after 43 years of using M1 oils and the last 10 years using M1 20wt oils, I can report outstanding results with using XMs 20 wt oil. To me CAFE is a place to eat and has nothing to do with accidental evidence.(y)
 
Money is no object for me and I could use any oil in the world, so after 43 years of using M1 oils and the last 10 years using M1 20wt oils, I can report outstanding results with using XMs 20 wt oil. To me CAFE is a place to eat and has nothing to do with accidental evidence.(y)

Tig1, is your Fusion GDI?
 
Tig1, is your Fusion GDI?
No, I chose not to go that rout, and stayed with the 2.5 NA engine. I typically drive my vehicles for several hundred thousand miles, and at this time I see some issues with that system ( GDI) I'm not comfortable with.
 
I liked this statement in the article: " The SAE 0W-8 has a high-temperature-high-shear (HTHS) viscosity of roughly 1.4 mPas, which is close to water at 20°C with 1 mPa. "

So when guys say they don't want to run "water thin" oil, I guess they can actually associate it with 0W-8. :D

The article didn't really mention anything about the changes in oil formulations as they become thinner. It would be interesting to see some details of how the formulation technology (base oil and AF/AW additives) have changed as the viscosity has decreased, because at some point metal-to-metal wear mitigation will be relying on the film strength more and more as the viscosity keeps decreasing.
 
One persons anecdotal evidence does not prove much of anything.

Thin oils are CAFE driven, not longevity driven, no matter how hard some want to belive otherwise.
Same can be said for anecdotes in the vice versa. No matter how hard some want to believe otherwise 😉. The better mpg from FE oils is negligible. But so too is the wear protection of a higher grade oil when not called for by the manufacturer in your region. Both are true but at negligible levels for the individual owner.

I think I mentioned this before...
A good example of this can be seen when comparing some Volkswagen/Audi approved oils, VW505/502 (Xw-40 with 3.5 hths) to VW508/509 (0W-20 with 2.6 hths) using the Lubrizol Performance Tool. The 508 (0W-20) outperforms the 505 (Xw-40) in various areas and equals it in wear protection. Yes, a 2.6 hths oil equalling a 3.5 hths in wear protection.
I was skeptical too. Skeptical until i saw various UOA showing this LL oil could go the distance (its recommended for 10k miles in turbo GDi applications) with very little wear. But those are just anecdotal so I'll revert back to Lubrizol. And let's not assume that VW508 oils require majority PAO. They do not and most are majority GrpIII with LL (long life) additives.

Now granted, VW504 is currently the king of the crop where VW oils is concerned and wear is measured by the same Lubrizol tool i mentioned. And It has a 3.5 hths requirement.


I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns with all things being equal (strictly speaking - hths). But the lower grades appear to be getting the lion's share of technical improvements in the area of anti-wear additives. How far this can be taken is a good question.
 
Last edited:
0W-4 was said to require HTHS-V of >1.4 mPas, 0W-8 probably still sports a solid >1.7
 
I'm still stuck on 0W-16.

0W-16.

Seems like a 20-grade oil does not shear down, which seems everyone's prime justification for skipping getting a 30-grade and just going 20..
 
Spot on. Even the new Mazda that uses 0w20 gets moved over to 5w30 Torco after a turbo and exhaust are added.
Can't get myself to leave a 0w20 in a car with forced induction except right now with redline 0w20 in our CR-V. If a downpipe and a tune get added it's going to 0w30 or 5w30. Seeing as all the same cars in Europe seem to run a 30 wt tells me there is some room for a tad thicker.
Careful Torco isn't too well known here on BITOG

;)
 
Same can be said for anecdotes in the vice versa. No matter how hard some want to believe otherwise 😉. The better mpg from FE oils is negligible. But so too is the wear protection of a higher grade oil when not called for by the manufacturer in your region. Both are true but at negligible levels for the individual owner.

I think I mentioned this before...
A good example of this can be seen when comparing some Volkswagen/Audi approved oils, VW505/502 (Xw-40 with 3.5 hths) to VW508/509 (0W-20 with 2.6 hths) using the Lubrizol Performance Tool. The 508 (0W-20) outperforms the 505 (Xw-40) in various areas and equals it in wear protection. Yes, a 2.6 hths oil equalling a 3.5 hths in wear protection.
I was skeptical too. Skeptical until i saw various UOA showing this LL oil could go the distance (its recommended for 10k miles in turbo GDi applications) with very little wear. But those are just anecdotal so I'll revert back to Lubrizol. And let's not assume that VW508 oils require majority PAO. They do not and most are majority GrpIII with LL (long life) additives.

Now granted, VW504 is currently the king of the crop where VW oils is concerned and wear is measured by the same Lubrizol tool i mentioned. And It has a 3.5 hths requirement.


I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns with all things being equal (strictly speaking - hths). But the lower grades appear to be getting the lion's share of technical improvements in the area of anti-wear additives. How far this can be taken is a good question.

First time for my using this tool, I'm impressed with 508.00 if this tool is to be believed.
 
It's the passing grade that the tool describes... straight D's across the board is still passed. It's going to be harder for the oil blenders to meet the 508 standard if it's higher in certain areas, but think of it as requiring C- now to pass.
 
We can, until the 1.4 take over.

These aren't meant to supersede the universal grade of 0W-20. In engines that are perfectly fine on such, the crème de la crème become the aberrance and hard to understand ;-)
 
Back
Top