Why not a -20w30?

[BobFout]

There's no need for anything lower than 0w.

http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=124&pcid=21

http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=125&pcid=21

http://www.redlineoil.com/product.aspx?pid=126&pcid=21

http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/sso.aspx

http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/asm.aspx

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-20_Advanced_Fuel_Economy.aspx

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-30_Advanced_Fuel_Economy.aspx

http://www.mobil.com/USA-English/Lubes/PDS/GLXXENPVLMOMobil_1_0W-40.aspx

 

[fsskier]

Are some here missing the original posters question? Re-read it again, it proposes a "-20W30" oil, not a 20W30.

When measured in constant terms, even 0W30 is "TarW30", much thicker cold then hot. Much, much thicker.

If you had an oil with a constant 10cst viscosity at all normal temperatures (say -30 to 212 f) then its rating would be more like -50W30)

Now, we are no where near being able to produce an oil like that, but if we can make 0W30, then instead of 0W20 we should be able to make "-10W20" with the same viscosity index as 0W30. Its just the next logical step. The oil nomenclature has not been developed.... but that is a trivial issue.

Nobody would worry about starting a car with hot 30 weight oil in it, so why do we want to start our cold cars with MUCH thicker oil, if we could have a "just some thicker" oil.

Some here may need to review temperature/viscosity charts if you are confused about the original posters question, or how multigrade oils are labeled.

 

[virginoil]

I think if a -20W30 oil was required to lubricate an engine then we would have moved into new technology uisng anti gravity devices for propulsion and engines designed that physical lubrication not being required.

UFO's have landed.

 

[dwendt44]

The average smuck on the street wouldn't notice the (-) before the first number. While a -5W-20 might be the next step down the viscosity scale, we may need a new designation for those (-) numbers; like -5SA20. Drop the W completely, most don't know what it stands for anyway.


SA for Sub Arctic.

 

[Scuderia]

Think of this way. If you had a car that called for 0w30, and ran at a constant 212F, would you rather have the 0W30 or an oil that had a constant 11 centistokes viscosity no matter what the temperature? The closer we can get to that mythological oil that doesn't change vis the better.

Complacency is why USSR failed.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

An Assumption a being made that "thicker" oil causes premature wear at above freezing temps during warmup. I wouldnt be so sure as it has been shown in multiple studies to be more attributable to acid formation from the fuel sulphur components. Also, Do you want those cold, shrunken pistons clanking around with 10cst viscosity in the sump? And again a 0w is not always thinner than a 5w above -20c, chaps. You need to eliminate the cloud or wax point of the oil to get those low "W" numbers, and like i stated pure light PAO basestock only flow to minus 60 or so and I sure dont care about driving in that weather. Then, you'll get the unblended PAO acting like a good fluid but poor lubrivcnt and you have HIGHER (IRON)

wear again witholding the fatty acid ester, AN and POE bases that wont cold flow. What I'm tring to say is, "they" cant make a good oil as a "-10w"-20 yet using paraffins, and you dont want a -10 or -20 anyhow - you're asking for a near constant-viscosity fluid which is not, as a necessity, correlated in any fashion to "W" numbers in paraffin lubricants - they all hit that cold gell point with the viscosity heading asymptotically, not linearly, skywards.

 

[Craig in Canada]

I'm not sure why so many people think the OP is saying "20W30" instead of "-20W30" - seems pretty clear to me.

My comments on "why not"... Without going back and reading my reference material, the W rating system specifies in the form "no thicker than X at Y temperature". This means that for marketing reasons an oil blender could choose to sell their 0W30-spec oil as a 5W30 if they wanted. Some might do this in, say, a southern US market where everyone is scared of 0W oils because they're "too thin". Take the same oil and slap a 5W30 label on it and then it sells fine. I believe there are some opposing limits imposed when we get to the 15W stage so that this behaviour wouldn't get carried away.

So, this means that some of today's 0W oils might actually be -5W or -10W oils, if such a rating system existed. With ACEA A3 0W30 and 0W40 oils on the market, you can bet that some of the syn 0W20s out there probably far exceed the minimum requirements to be called a 0W. The problem is with the selective disclosure of real data on PDS it might be difficult to find those oils without doing lab testing of your own.

I agree that we can just start throwing negative W ratings out on the market. Take a look at this thread. We're oil fanatics and 2/3 of the people responding didn't catch or understand the negative first number. What's Joe Average or Ms. Soccer Mom going to think?