Use Proper Terminology for SAE and API Ratings

[Max_Wander]

undue confusion: the problem with pedantics.

I can see shannow's revolutionary idea working far more accurately than anything involving ye olde thyme SAE grading schedule. SAE grading has been at it's arbitrary limit with the 0W rating for years now anyway.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: TallPaul
I like it! Gives you operating viscosity and an indication of how responsive it is to cold (as well as how much VII if you know the base oil).

How broad a brush is this 50% thinner at start up thing? Is it just a matter or subtracting 100? So Amsoil SAE 30 is about 25% thinner at start up than a conventional SAE 30?


Got a data book in front of me at present, and if you take a largish sample of oils, it's not that straight cut.

Still works, but not as simply.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
And here I have finally trained myself to write it "5W30" and now I have to go back to "5w30." This is as bad as the uniform changes on Star Trek!
I like 5w30 as the slash is so powerful appearing.

 

[TallPaul]

Yeah, that is nice with the slash.

Or how about 10w(30)

Or 10(w)30

Or 30-10w

Or (10w)30

Or 10w:30

Or 10w.30

Or 10w~30

Or 10w&30

Or 10w^30

Or 10w*30

Or 30

Or 10"w"30

Or ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Lazy JW]

Ya, I yam yust so confoosed; taked me 40 year to learn to call it yam and now dey calls it YELLY!

 

[AEHaas]

I propose a new classification based on the viscosity. Let us use the 40 and 100 C viscosities to give us some actually useful numbers on the oil can. The first number gives the 40 C range and all viscosities within a range of 10 would be given as the lowest number. For the 100 C viscosity the range would be within 1 cS. These numbers are close enough.

For example oils with a 40 C viscosity of 62, 66 and 68 would all be a 60-X oil.
For the 100 C an oil that is 10.2 or 10.5 or 10.7 would all be a X-10 oil.

Your average 10w30 grade oil could then be given as a 60W-10 grade oil. Another similar oil may be a 70W-11 grade oil. This gives us actual useful information. It would help stop the confusion that oils thin when they get cold. We hear people say things as "no no, I cannot use that 0w30 oil, it is too thin. I need a 10w30 for that extra start up protection." We can see that the cold rating shows the oil is thicker.

0W-40 Mobil 1 would be 80W-14 as another example.

Also it solves the problem of what to use next when even better flow at cold temperatures becomes available. What do we use now to show that an oil has better start up performance? Do we go to negative numbers? (-)5w30?

One more thing to make the change less confusing is to use some other letter besides W. For example 80S-14 for 0W40 Mobil 1. This shows that the 80 is for start up viscosity.

aehaas

 

[Shannow]

the "w" would be meaningless, as 40 C doesn't describe any sort of starting parameter for nearly ever person on BITOG...I've only ever started a car at 40C a handful of times in my life.

Maybe operating viscosity and pour point ???

 

[MGregoir]

How about a performance indicator chart on the back of API approved oil bottles.

Keep the grade, such as 0W-30, and on the back of the bottle put the API rating, SAE grade, CCS viscosity in poise at 0 Celsius, kinematic viscosity at 100 Celsius, and HT/HS viscosity underneath it.

All around a better way to compare apples to apples for oil. Grade gives you the absolute lower limit of the oil, and the rest of the data gives a relative scale.

 

[Shannow]

I'd LOVE to see all of the "nutritional" information on the back of the bottle.

I think that we've got none and Buckley's of seeing it 'though.

 

[TallPaul]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I'd LOVE to see all of the "nutritional" information on the back of the bottle.
If the OGA (Oil and Grease Administration, a future government agency) mandated that, would they then follow with a Oil Pyramid showing the correct proportions for balanced motor oil blend?