He is using his daughters '23 Corolla as test bed. Also mentioned how 10,000 mile oil changes are not a good idea and that he changed the oil twice already himself before taking it in to the dealer at 10,000 miles to see what oil they will use.
Tribologist discusses 0W8 motor oil
- Thread starter atikovi
- Start date
He is using his daughters '23 Corolla as test bed. Also mentioned how 10,000 mile oil changes are not a good idea and that he changed the oil twice already himself before taking it in to the dealer at 10,000 miles to see what oil they will use.
That's a great presentation. And Toyota knows how to design an engine for such oils.
He did the first few oil changes early to flush out break in wear. Going into this change they put 7500 miles on the 0W-16 and concluded the oil held up fine. Now that they’ve got a 0W-8 in he said they’re going to sample it at 5k, 7.5k, 10k to see how well it holds up over that long of an interval.
Not sure where you’re getting the anti 10k mile message from because they’ve just started the test.
And as usual it's not about the oil. It's about an engine that is able to withstand a low HT/HS oil without excessive wear, under these circumstances.
LSJ's stance in this isn't really about the interval, yet. He promises 5k/7.5k/10k sampling on the next run for the car, to either support or disprove that conclusion from a UOA perspective. He does comment on interval in other videos, for instance the one I've linked.
His position is that oil changes are cheap in the grand scheme and don't really have much downside (if you can manage to avoid stripping the drain plug) if equipment longevity is a goal. He says that soot loading is what causes wear in diesels, and oil changes are the available mitigation strategy. He takes the additional position that engine break-in is real and additional lube changes during that period can resupply tribofilm ingredients while flushing wear metal inventory.
His overarching theme is that low viscosity is not necessarily bad and that there is no need to 0w-40 or 15w-40 all the things. Lubricant chemistry can play a huge role in its performance, especially if low wear and low friction are concurrent goals.
His position is that oil changes are cheap in the grand scheme and don't really have much downside (if you can manage to avoid stripping the drain plug) if equipment longevity is a goal. He says that soot loading is what causes wear in diesels, and oil changes are the available mitigation strategy. He takes the additional position that engine break-in is real and additional lube changes during that period can resupply tribofilm ingredients while flushing wear metal inventory.
His overarching theme is that low viscosity is not necessarily bad and that there is no need to 0w-40 or 15w-40 all the things. Lubricant chemistry can play a huge role in its performance, especially if low wear and low friction are concurrent goals.
Last edited:
What is there to discuss?
If the oil is thinner than 10cSt at operating temperature, no.
If it's thinner than 7cSt at operating temperature then heck no.
If the oil is thinner than 10cSt at operating temperature, no.
If it's thinner than 7cSt at operating temperature then heck no.
I always have to psych myself in preparation to watching one of his videos. To me, he comes across as trying too hard to sell me on his expertise, but this video was much better.
I found it interesting when he shared what was learned from trials at GM, that a 0W-12 resulted in less wear than a Gen 2 Dexos 1 5W-30, showing that additive package can make enough difference, so that a thinner oil can protect better than a thicker oil. This sure goes against the grain of a lot of personal opinions shared here.
I found it interesting when he shared what was learned from trials at GM, that a 0W-12 resulted in less wear than a Gen 2 Dexos 1 5W-30, showing that additive package can make enough difference, so that a thinner oil can protect better than a thicker oil. This sure goes against the grain of a lot of personal opinions shared here.
Not really but I’d rather rely on an intrinsic property rather than the additives. But maybe that’s just me.
Do the two oils have the same additives ? If not, it's not a valid comparison, is it ?
Will this shut up the criticisms of "thin" oil and extended intervals ? Sadly, it won't....
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2023
- Messages
- 418
Also my stance, and why I'll continue with my 1 year/<2k mi (Mazda MPI) and 6mo/<2k mi (Hyundai GDI) service intervals. Oil's cheap compared to a motor. Always Mobil1 HMFS oil for both.
Why does someone have to be shut up? Perhaps make valid technical arguments instead.
**** 0w8 and I thought 5W-20 was then LMAO 
that's got to be like water
that's got to be like waterLots of common wally world xw-30 oils are barely 10 cSt at 100C. That criteria really thins the herd. Not criticizing as the thinnest stuff on my shelf is 10.6.
In that case, vanilla SAE-30 is good stuff. Maybe we depend on both. For instance, ZDDP is an additive that we're all familiar with and gets lots of love. I think we rely on both.
To his credit, he was pretty clear that this example GM xw-12 was a boutique formulation in terms of anti-wear additives, not representative of things available on the retail market. I think his point in the example is that physical lubrication and chemical lubrication are a give and take. Each can give, each can take.
The vast majority argue against thin oil / long intervals and give ZERO technical arguments. All too often they're just repeating things others said (with no technical arguments there either). Plenty of examples of Toyota owners/engines following the spec'd oil (0W-20 and lower) being changed every 10k miles and they still last 200k+ miles while some claim a conspiracy that the automakers only want to squeak by the warranty time.
Same.
No. He stated that the 0W-12 had a new "top secret" additive pack, when the 5W-30 had a gen 2 Dexos 1 compliant add pack. But you seem to be missing his point.
Clearly, a "thin" motor oil can be made to significantly outperform an oil that is accepted to meet a well established and respected specification. So many times we see comments made as an absolute, that these thinner motor oils just won't protect an engine, and will lead to early engine failure. But in truth, at least based upon this example he shares, nothing could be further from the truth.
Guess I better have a looksie at this here thread...
I agree that if your sole criteria for choosing a motor oil is a small fuel economy increase, then this is for you.
I will say however, that it has taken a lot of research time and money to get here. I wonder if the resultant aggregate fuel consumption decrease has been worth it? These technological advancements (and not just for the oil but the engine as well) don't come cheap.
Similar threads
