Thin cleans better, allows longer OCI than thick!

[nap]

Originally Posted By: OilUzer

Are there some "performance" tests that are not applicable to 0Wx20 or why are (some?) tests "relaxed" for 0Wx20?

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I was assuming for example that any api sx cert/test to be exactly the same for 0Wx20 vs. 5Wx30 ... no?


You can find the differences here:

https://www.infineum.com/media/80723/api-engine-oil-classifications.pdf

(pay attention to the footnotes too, such as (1) Not required for SAE 0W20)

 

[BayTm21]

 

[BayTm21]

Same engine toyota A25 camry hybird 2018.jdm 、us、china is so different. cafe？

 

[nap]

Thank you BayTm21. The Camry example is completely debunking the myth that engines that can take 0W16 cannot take any higher viscosities due to some special clearances/tolerances/oil passages etc.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: nap
Thank you BayTm21. The Camry example is completely debunking the myth that engines that can take 0W16 cannot take any higher viscosities due to some special clearances/tolerances/oil passages etc.


And no CAFE in China.

I love the one size doesn't fit all for oil grades in the owners manual too.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: nap
Thank you BayTm21. The Camry example is completely debunking the myth that engines that can take 0W16 cannot take any higher viscosities due to some special clearances/tolerances/oil passages etc.
I don't know where people get their ideas.

 

[aquariuscsm]

OW16,might as well be 0WNothing haha

 

[wemay]

The opposite may also hold true for those in China and elsewhere where thicker viscosity may be recommended. The Camry will be just as fine on 0W16 as it is on 5W30. In essence, both being true.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: wemay
The opposite may also hold true for those in China and elsewhere where thicker viscosity may be recommended. The Camry will be just as fine on 0W16 as it is on 5W30. In essence, both being true.


Define “fine”.....

 

[Overfill]

The full warranty of the car. So generous!

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: wemay
The opposite may also hold true for those in China and elsewhere where thicker viscosity may be recommended. The Camry will be just as fine on 0W16 as it is on 5W30. In essence, both being true.




Define “fine”.....











Your bias against thinner grades closes your mind to any facts. Where are the reports of engines failing from 0w16-20 oils? There are none.

Wemay is correct. Run the oil of your choice. The engine will last a long time.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Brian553
The full warranty of the car. So generous!

So all the Toyota, all the Honda, all the Ford vehicles out there running on X0-20 are experiencing engine failures right at the end of the warranty? Guess I didn't notice that.

 

[JAG]

People need to stop often going straight to the talk of engine failures to prove their point. Most passenger car and truck engines don’t fail. Most slowly wear out and are scrapped or rebuilt because oil consumption gets so bad. That is due to some combination of ring/liner wear and valve guide/seal wear and deterioration. For some, but I think the former case is much more common these days, is low oil pressure due to bearing wear. So, people should be discussing wear rates, not engine failures.

 

[Gokhan]

Enough with the 0W-20 TEOST 33C foolishness. Let's clarify things once and for all so that the falsehoods are no longer spread around.

Any oil that has the API Starburst symbol is not exempt from TEOST 33, even if it is 0W-20. 5W-16, or 0W-16.

This:

means the oil passed TEOST 33C, irregardless of whether it is 0W-xx etc.

The exemption for 0W-20, 5W-16, and 0W-16 is only for API SN without Resource Conserving. This means the oil is a high-moly oil and cannot pass TEOST 33C as a result. This is exactly the same as thicker oils being exempt from the phosphorus (ZDDP) limit. These high-moly 0W-20 SN oils (if there are any) are not tested for TEOST 33C and they can't carry the Resource Conserving certification as a result. Nevertheless, I can't find any if there is one out there currently. With the introduction of API SN Resource Conserving, high-moly oils (~ 700 - 800 ppm moly) that were abundant in the API SM Energy Conserving era have disappeared because of turbocharger protection under Resource Conserving in API SN with Resource Conserving.

In summary, the exemption for 0W-20 in TEOST 33C is only for API SN without Resource Conserving, not API SN with Resource Conserving. TEOST 33C is also not required for thicker oils (thicker than 10W-30, so-called non-ILSAC grades) that cannot carry the API Resource Conserving certification and Starburst mark. If an oil is Resource Conserving, it passed TEOST 33C, irregardless of being a 0W-xx etc. If it's not Resource Conserving, such as a 10W-40 without the Starburst mark, it did not pass TEOST 33C.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Your bias against thinner grades closes your mind to any facts. Where are the reports of engines failing from 0w16-20 oils? There are none. .


Time for ad hominem and strawman, eh?

Nice try, but how about you address the topic instead.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Enough with the 0W-20 TEOST 33C foolishness. Let's clarify things once and for all so that the falsehoods are no longer spread around.

Any oil that has the API Starburst symbol is not exempt from TEOST 33, even if it is 0W-20. 5W-16, or 0W-16.

This:

means the oil passed TEOST 33C, irregardless of whether it is 0W-xx etc.

The exemption for 0W-20, 5W-16, and 0W-16 is only for API SN without Resource Conserving. This means the oil is a high-moly oil and cannot pass TEOST 33C as a result. This is exactly the same as thicker oils being exempt from the phosphorus (ZDDP) limit. These high-moly 0W-20 SN oils (if there are any) are not tested for TEOST 33C and they can't carry the Resource Conserving certification as a result. Nevertheless, I can't find any if there is one out there currently. With the introduction of API SN Resource Conserving, high-moly oils (~ 700 - 800 ppm moly) that were abundant in API SM Energy Conserving has disappeared because of turbocharger protection under Resource Conserving in API SN.

In summary, the exemption for 0W-20 on TEOST 33C is only for API SN without Resource Conserving, not API SN with Resource Conserving. TEOST 33C is also not required for thicker oils (thicker than 10W-30) that cannot carry the API Resource Conserving certification and Starburst mark. If an oil is Resource Conserving, it passed TEOST 33C. If it's not Resource Conserving, such as a 10W-40 without the Starburst mark, it did not pass TEOST 33C.



Gokhan, can’t you read?

https://www.infineum.com/media/80723/api-engine-oil-classifications.pdf

Page 2, Footnotes 1 , 2 and 15. Exemption 2 and 15 are for the non RC oils as you mention. However, exemption 1 is for 0W20, regardless of whether it is RC or not. Now check the TEOST 33 line and it has exemption 1 in addition to 2 and 15.

So 0W20 is exempt solely on its viscosity, regardless of its RC or starburst status.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Enough with the 0W-20 TEOST 33C foolishness. Let's clarify things once and for all so that the falsehoods are no longer spread around.

Any oil that has the API Starburst symbol is not exempt from TEOST 33, even if it is 0W-20. 5W-16, or 0W-16.

This:

means the oil passed TEOST 33C, irregardless of whether it is 0W-xx etc.

The exemption for 0W-20, 5W-16, and 0W-16 is only for API SN without Resource Conserving. This means the oil is a high-moly oil and cannot pass TEOST 33C as a result. This is exactly the same as thicker oils being exempt from the phosphorus (ZDDP) limit. These high-moly 0W-20 SN oils (if there are any) are not tested for TEOST 33C and they can't carry the Resource Conserving certification as a result. Nevertheless, I can't find any if there is one out there currently. With the introduction of API SN Resource Conserving, high-moly oils (~ 700 - 800 ppm moly) that were abundant in the API SM Energy Conserving era have disappeared because of turbocharger protection under Resource Conserving in API SN with Resource Conserving.

In summary, the exemption for 0W-20 in TEOST 33C is only for API SN without Resource Conserving, not API SN with Resource Conserving. TEOST 33C is also not required for thicker oils (thicker than 10W-30, so-called non-ILSAC grades) that cannot carry the API Resource Conserving certification and Starburst mark. If an oil is Resource Conserving, it passed TEOST 33C, irregardless of being a 0W-xx etc. If it's not Resource Conserving, such as a 10W-40 without the Starburst mark, it did not pass TEOST 33C.


Can you sight your resource please?

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: nap
Gokhan, can’t you read?

https://www.infineum.com/media/80723/api-engine-oil-classifications.pdf

Page 2, Footnotes 1 , 2 and 15. Exemption 2 and 15 are for the non RC oils as you mention. However, exemption 1 is for 0W20, regardless of whether it is RC or not. Now check the TEOST 33 line and it has exemption 1 in addition to 2 and 15.

So 0W20 is exempt solely on its viscosity, regardless of its RC or starburst status.

No, you can't.

Read carefully and pay attention so that what you read makes sense and you don't interpret things incorrectly as you did. Your eyes are reading but your brain is not paying attention the detail.

These are the requirements for API SN-RC (SN with Resource Conserving), not for API SN without RC (without Resource Conserving):

Now, this is the table of the footnotes that has been confusing you. The key sentence here that you should have paid attention to but you have not is at the very top and is in large print: "Requirements for API SN are the same as those for API SN-RC, except as noted in the table to the right." What they are saying is that the exemptions for API SN without RC (without Resource Conserving) are noted in this table. The exemptions for TEOST 33C that keep confusing you are:

Exemptions for TEOST 33C:

(1) Not required for SAE 0W-20.
(2) Not required for SN Non-ILSAC GF-5 viscosity grades (non-ILSAC viscosity grades are xW-40, xW-50, and xW-60).
(15) Not Required for SN ILSAC GF-5 viscosity grades (ILSAC viscosity grades are xW-16, xW-20, and xW-30) which do not also contain the API Certification Mark or are not SN-RC.

So, not only 0W-20 is exempt from TEOST 33C but all non-ILSAC SAE grades -- all xW-40, xW-50, and xW-60 -- are exempt from TEOST 33C.

TEOST 33C test means turbocharger protection. From the API motor-oil guide, Resource Conserving means "API SN with Resource Conserving matches ILSAC GF-5 by combining API SN performance with improved fuel economy, turbocharger protection, emission control system compatibility, and protection of engines operating on ethanol-containing fuels up to E85."

How do you expect to have the Resource Conserving certification and API Starburst on a bottle of motor oil if the requirements of Resource Conserving, including the turbocharger protection, are not met? This would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. A consumer would be sold a bottle of oil that claims to have turbocharger protection (Resource Conserving) but due to some obscure footnote regarding turbocharge protection in an Infineum brochure that is often misinterpreted by some people, it actually wouldn't? Now, how absurd that would be!

As a final note, which I emphasized before, the high-moly exemption for 0W-20 is no different than the high-ZDDP (high-phosphorus) exemption for xW-40, xW-50, and xW-60. The latter are non-ILSAC grades and are exempt from TEOST 33C and ZDDP-maximum requirements of Resource Conserving and the former (0W-20) is an ILSAC grade but it's still allowed not to have the Resource Conserving requirement of ILSAC and drop the API Starburst and Resource Conserving and satisfy API SN only if the manufacturer chooses to load it with moly. However, high-moly (700 - 800 ppm moly) 0W-20's are mostly from the API SM era, which didn't have turbocharger protection, and I'm not aware of any high-moly API SN 0W-20 that doesn't have the Resource Conserving (API Starbust) and therefore chose not to do and/or pass the TEOST 33C turbocharger-protection test.

Is this finally clear?

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: JAG
People need to stop often going straight to the talk of engine failures to prove their point...


It's a figure of speech. Just like others saying 0W16 is "0Wnothing" or W20 are thin as water, or these thin oils only last the warranty period. I'm sure we've all read those too.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
In summary, the exemption for 0W-20 in TEOST 33C is only for API SN without Resource Conserving, not API SN with Resource Conserving.


That's exactly NOT what your table says...the 0W20 resource conserving IS exempt...that's what it says.

The numerical points aren't cumulative to make your argument better...whatever it is.