My engine prefers 0W20 over 0W16. It loves it so much. I can hear it.
Tribologist discusses 0W8 motor oil
- Thread starter atikovi
- Start date
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
If my dates are correct - this style of oil can came out about when GON and Pablo started chasing girls - I have however brought new life to it with one of these modern lubes (ain’t going in my motor) 
Just responding to where you said "Maybe the thin oil engine prefers thin oil because it was built with that in mind", which is anthropomorphic nonsense and has no technical basis.
As for the rest, I'm not entirely sure of the overall point.
Even if you believe that his wear test method provides any valuable information, those results only differed by a whopping 5% I know it looks larger, more like a 2x difference between the best and worst, because of how close he zoomed in on the y-axis. A tried and true tactic of deceptive data presentation.
Results close enough that I’d be shocked if his test setup could even reliably measure differences that small. Something he could easily prove but never has. But I get it, content needs to be churned out and why bother doing even the smallest amount of experimental rigor when it’s just so much easier to amplify potentially meaningless differences by hard ranking results as 1st 2nd and 3rd place.
Yes. Those "tests" just don't mean much. Even when Amsoil wins.
And suddenly, LSJ is BITOG's current obsession.
HPL, congrats, you had a great run.
LOL
HPL, congrats, you had a great run.
LOL
This is not the first forum I’ve been on. Nor the last probably. With a lot of oil related questions.
For whatever reason, people think there’s some grand conspiracy in the oil industry, with the differences between products. Or why certain things are spec’d that way. Or how tests are done. Etc.
The reality is, all the tests that PF does, if they are worth the time to do, are on the product data sheet of your favorite oil. Lake is trying to add words to a conversation that, really arguably doesn’t need to happen. I get it, he’s a marketing guy, his background is in marketing and he’s doing a great job with marketing.
Both PF and Lake are doing it for clicks. Clicks equals money. So, I get it.
The reality of the oil world is… there’s not a grand conspiracy here. The engineers who designed your car, didn’t think of PUP vs Mobil 1 vs Amsoil in the car… they told the engineer that designed the oil pump “hey we need this much flow at this viscosity at this temperature.” That’s… about it.
Sure, once you get into the stratosphere of tribology, experimenting with new coatings, new fluid types, new material types, etc. gets a lot more complicated.
But the reality is, in a 2012 F150. Yeah, uh… use whatever the manufacturer recommended, in whatever brand you like. Etc.
The idea of the ULV products I discussed in another thread. And I’ll sorta repeat here. It has a significant amount to do with the finish of the metals in the machining process. The tolerances they can get to. How clean they can get the metal after machining. How cool they can keep the engine and oil. What surface finishes they’re putting on the parts. It’s all possible, but currently it is hyper expensive to do in mass production. Probably because there is so little room for error. Have a tool that wears slightly out of spec, too fast? Welp. There goes several engines. Assuming it’s even caught before it goes into the customers hands. Have a coating that didn’t apply evenly? Well, you probably lost that customer for life. Etc.
That adds up. Which again, is not so much an oil question - the oil can do it. We already figured it out. So it’s out of tribology now, into the world of mechanical engineering / process engineering to get the manufacturing process down.
It’s coming, sure. ULV products make sense on the friction side. It’s just if the physical components can make use of a ULV product, is another story.
For whatever reason, people think there’s some grand conspiracy in the oil industry, with the differences between products. Or why certain things are spec’d that way. Or how tests are done. Etc.
The reality is, all the tests that PF does, if they are worth the time to do, are on the product data sheet of your favorite oil. Lake is trying to add words to a conversation that, really arguably doesn’t need to happen. I get it, he’s a marketing guy, his background is in marketing and he’s doing a great job with marketing.
Both PF and Lake are doing it for clicks. Clicks equals money. So, I get it.
The reality of the oil world is… there’s not a grand conspiracy here. The engineers who designed your car, didn’t think of PUP vs Mobil 1 vs Amsoil in the car… they told the engineer that designed the oil pump “hey we need this much flow at this viscosity at this temperature.” That’s… about it.
Sure, once you get into the stratosphere of tribology, experimenting with new coatings, new fluid types, new material types, etc. gets a lot more complicated.
But the reality is, in a 2012 F150. Yeah, uh… use whatever the manufacturer recommended, in whatever brand you like. Etc.
The idea of the ULV products I discussed in another thread. And I’ll sorta repeat here. It has a significant amount to do with the finish of the metals in the machining process. The tolerances they can get to. How clean they can get the metal after machining. How cool they can keep the engine and oil. What surface finishes they’re putting on the parts. It’s all possible, but currently it is hyper expensive to do in mass production. Probably because there is so little room for error. Have a tool that wears slightly out of spec, too fast? Welp. There goes several engines. Assuming it’s even caught before it goes into the customers hands. Have a coating that didn’t apply evenly? Well, you probably lost that customer for life. Etc.
That adds up. Which again, is not so much an oil question - the oil can do it. We already figured it out. So it’s out of tribology now, into the world of mechanical engineering / process engineering to get the manufacturing process down.
It’s coming, sure. ULV products make sense on the friction side. It’s just if the physical components can make use of a ULV product, is another story.
A proper analysis of the already deeply flawed data shows that there is zero difference between any result.
My viewpoint is that it's about wear protection headroom. Nobody here knows exactly how close every part inside an engine is to running at zero film thickness. But if you have more film thickness between parts to start with, then there is more film thickness to work with and therefore more wear protection regardless of the possible driving conditions. It really hurts nothing to have more separation going on between moving parts except for a little less fuel economy (CAFE's ears just perked up) that can only really be seen in a controlled laboratory test. Keeping parts separated with a lubricant's viscosity is the whole basic scheme from the begging of the science of Tribology. Obviously AF/AW additives science these days has a roll in the mitigation of wear too, but in the end the viscosity will always be the main property of a lubricant to keep parts separated from rubbing and wearing. I'd rather rely mostly on viscosity instead of the tribofilm if I have a choice.
In the end, it's actually all about the HTHS viscosity. HPL no-VI oils have better HTHS viscosity when comparing the same SAE kinematic viscosity grades because they lack VIIs and have a stout base oil. The VIIs shear between moving parts (both temporarily and permanently), and that decreases the kinematic viscosity to a lower HTHS viscosity down the what the base oil was before VIIs were added. The HTHS viscositly is what really matters between moving parts.
When it's not the MOFT keeping moving parts from rubbing and wearing, then it becomes the AF/AW tribofilm's job to kick-in to mitigate wear when the film thickness failed to do at that point. The viscosity is the main mitigation of wear, and the tribofilm is only backup system. This is a good article from Machinery Lubrication that points that out. The term "film strength" is the AF/AW tribofilm.
The Importance of Lubricant Film Strength
Discover why film strength is one of the most critical lubricant properties for protecting a machine’s internal components.
www.machinerylubrication.com
"Film strength can be described as the lubricant’s ability to lessen the effects of friction and control wear by means other than the film thickness. As mentioned, the viscosity is the primary contributor to film thickness during hydrodynamic and elastohydrodynamic lubrication. When the base oil viscosity is insufficient to overcome metal-to-metal surface contact, the base oil and additive chemistry work together to create a surface protection mechanism. During these boundary conditions, boundary lubrication is also influenced by the chemical and physical properties of the mechanical surfaces and any contributing environmental factors. Even when loads and temperatures are higher and relative surface velocities are lower, the film strength is improved."
Last edited:
0w16 meets GF-6B. What’s 0w8 story?
I have used this kind of oil can from my grandparents to oil my bike chain... Memories! And fun to use!If my dates are correct - this style of oil can came out about when GON and Pablo started chasing girls - I have however brought new life to it with one of these modern lubes (ain’t going in my motor)
As far as I can see the PF methodology test viscosity.
Lower viscosity oils will flow faster and perform worse in his "wear" test.
It is difficult to see how the methodology is applicable to what happens in an engine.
Lower viscosity oils will flow faster and perform worse in his "wear" test.
It is difficult to see how the methodology is applicable to what happens in an engine.
Hey guys don't overlook the benefit of having sufficient oil cooling. It's only going to gain in importance which is kinda of a catch 22 because it adds complexity.
Would a 5-40/50 pao oil be better?
Unfortunately, most articles are AI written BS now unless it's coming from a trusted source.
It's been pointed out in other threads that his "cold oil flow race" test doesn't always correlate to the CCS and MRV specs of the oils he's comparing. So those cold flow tests may not actually correlate to how those oils would actually behave in a cold start-up and pumpability in a real engine. These days, a lot of people buy into the hype based on only the visual aspects they see instead of the actual technical aspects.
Looks like they are now officially in the ILSAC GF-6B category.
API ballots inclusion of ultra-low viscosity oils in ILSAC GF-6B - F&L Asia
During the Auto/Oil Advisory Panel (AOAP) meeting on January 31, 2023, a motion to ballot the inclusion of ultra-low viscosity engine oil grades SAE 0W-8 and SAE 0W-12 in the ILSAC GF-6B passenger car motor oil (PCMO) standard was passed.
www.fuelsandlubes.com
"During the Auto/Oil Advisory Panel (AOAP) meeting on January 31, 2023, a motion to ballot the inclusion of ultra-low viscosity engine oil grades SAE 0W-8 and SAE 0W-12 in the ILSAC GF-6B passenger car motor oil (PCMO) standard was passed."
I don’t know if I want to drive a vehicle with a “ice” requiring oil that thin. I’d be comfortable making the transition to an ev by then.
pao? Now sure why you would ask me that, I know next to nothing about those technical aspects of oil beyond weight and grade
Similar threads
