SAE 16. Set at a minimum of 2.3 mPa⋅s at 150°C

Status
Not open for further replies.

wemay

Site Donor 2023
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
17,195
Location
Kendall, FL
http://www.gf-6.com/low-viscosity-sae-16-oils

In April of 2013, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) introduced a new, low viscosity grade specification in revisions made to the J300 Engine Oil Classification. Formally labeled as SAE 16, the new oil specification will help OEMs meet increasingly strict corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) requirements. However, ultra-low viscosity grade oils can create durability challenges.

SAE 16 will serve as a lighter-weight alternative to SAE 20. With kinematic viscosity (KV) limits set at 6.1 – 8.2 mm2/s at 100°C, the main objective behind SAE 16 is to better facilitate fuel efficiency in engines by reducing hydrodynamic friction between moving parts, such as piston rings, bearings and valve trains.

To further contribute to higher fuel economy, a reduction in the oil’s high-temperature, high-shear (HTHS) viscosity limits has also been defined in SAE 16. Set at a minimum of 2.3 mPa⋅s at 150°C, this marks the first time ever that SAE has defined this limit below 2.6. Although it will help improve fuel efficiency throughout the entire oil drain interval, it opens the door for increased wear and tear on critical engine parts. This makes the development of new additives suitable for ultra-thin oils in high power density engines that much more critical.

In addition to the introduction of SAE 16 last April, the new revision to J300 also included a change in the minimum high-temperature viscosity range of SAE 20. With a previously set KV minimum limit measured at 100°C of 5.6 mm2/s, the lower portion of the SAE 20 range was not being utilized by OEMs. As a result, the limit was raised to 6.9 mm2/s, which effectively narrowed SAE 20’s range and made it similar to that of higher-viscosity grades.

The revisions made to the J300 Classification Standard have paved the way for low viscosity SAE XW-16 oils. This will have a significant impact on the GF-6 engine oil performance category, especially because of its proposed split into two separate subcategories: GF-6A and GF-6B.

While GF-6A oils (i.e., SAE 0W-20) will incorporate all the measures of protection required for use in gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines, along with other innovative automotive technologies that haven’t yet reached the market, it will be backwards compatible with all applications currently approved for GF-5. As a result, the viscosity of these oils will be low but not so low that they can’t protect against wear and corrosion in older engines.

GF-6B, on the other hand, forgoes the requirement to be backwards compatible with GF-5 applications and opens the door for the development of ultra-low viscosity lubricants (i.e., SAE 16) that will push the industry into areas of formulation that have never before been encountered. These lubricants will produce significant fuel economy benefits for many engine applications, but because of their low viscosity grade, there is the potential for wear or other durability related issues.

When asked about the implications that SAE XW-16 will have on passenger car motor oil (PCMO) performance requirements, Lubrizol’s PCMO Product Manager, Jon Vilardo, said:

“While it is generally accepted that lower viscosity brings an improvement in fuel economy performance, it can have a negative impact on durability; the protective oil film is less robust, or under the most extreme loading conditions, non-existent. In terms of performance requirements, this translates to a set of standards that will ensure fuel economy is improved via lower viscosity, but durability will not be compromised. The future proposed ultra-low viscosity GF-6B specification requires the same durability performance as the proposed GF-6A. This may require enhanced fortification of specific additive components or a different formulation shape to deliver the required durability in SAE XW-16 fluids.”

Recognizing this, Lubrizol has already begun product development on a specially formulated additive to meet ultra-low viscosity durability demands, especially in anticipation of API SN soon becoming a licensable spec for SAE XW-16 oils.

Pushing the limits of engine oil formulation, the objective of this new additive will be to meet future market needs and allow for the use of low viscosity lubricants in highly demanding engine applications, without the inherent complications they present in terms of protection and durability. Other design goals will be to provide improved high temperature deposit protection for pistons, better sludge control and seal compatibility.
 
When I bought my old Daihatsu back in 2006, the Factory Fill oil it contained was (I think) a 0W20. 9000 miles later, with fuel dilution at 8.0%, that oil had a KV100 of about 5 cst! ie lower than the KV100 range for xW-16.

The car survived and lasted another seven years, probably because I never really thrashed it and the oil temperature never ever came close to 150C. However if a 0W20 can drop to 5 cst after the engines first service, when everything is supposed to be at it best, I shudder to think how low a 0W-16 could drop under similar circumstances.

This is how clever people do dumb things. I fear there will be tears before bedtime not long after this stuff hits the streets...
 
Last edited:
At some point 'government mandates' are going to affect engine durability.

Maybe we (the voter's) should 'mandate' that our politicians conserve fuel by taking less tax payer funded 'junkets'....
 
20 is thin enough for pumping losses imo. CAFE is silly, they push gas mileage like crazy in a country that buys mostly full size trucks and SUVs
 
Yup. A gas tax high enough to care of all the outstanding infrastructure repairs and needs would likely curtail consumption, but that's a regressive tax. Luxury and gas guzzler taxes would be a more progressive [tax] solution. With the right luxury and gas guzzler tax combo we could start getting trucks back to being utility vehicles rather than 3+ ton luxury vehicles.
 
Originally Posted By: dareo
20 is thin enough for pumping losses imo. CAFE is silly, they push gas mileage like crazy in a country that buys mostly full size trucks and SUVs


Pumping losses between 20 and 16 are about the same as the power input of a brake light, tens of watts.

It's internal engine drag that they are after, and if your favourite tool is a hammer (in this case viscosity), then every problem is a nail.
 
Originally Posted By: dareo
20 is thin enough for pumping losses imo. CAFE is silly, they push gas mileage like crazy in a country that buys mostly full size trucks and SUVs

Bingo. Unfortunately, that's the system that OEMs face. Incremental fuel economy gains are rewarded, but there's nothing quite like selling a whack of $80,000 SUVs.
 
Originally Posted By: Joshua_Skinner
Yup. A gas tax high enough to care of all the outstanding infrastructure repairs and needs would likely curtail consumption, but that's a regressive tax. Luxury and gas guzzler taxes would be a more progressive [tax] solution. With the right luxury and gas guzzler tax combo we could start getting trucks back to being utility vehicles rather than 3+ ton luxury vehicles.
I rather enjoy my truck and I put about 8,000 miles per year on it and get about 20 combined driving and an easy 25 mpgs on the freeway.
 
Just out of curiosity, I had a look at the 0W20 oils in Volodymyr's VOA tables in this link....

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4182809/1

I notice that 6 of the 26 0W20 oils had KV100s that fell within the new 0W16 KV100 range of 6.1 to 8.2 cst. The oil with the lowest KV100 at 7.03 cst was Redline 0W20. It's a pity that the tables don't show the HTHS for some of these oils because I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were less than the 2.6 cP you need for 0W20 and more like the 2.3-ish you get with 0W16. Maybe tomorrow has already arrived!
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow

Pumping losses between 20 and 16 are about the same as the power input of a brake light, tens of watts.

It's internal engine drag that they are after, and if your favourite tool is a hammer (in this case viscosity), then every problem is a nail.
There was a session at this year's STLE that was focused on the drastically diminishing returns of lower viscosity oils on fuel economy and the increasing difficulty in making an effective oil at the low viscosities. It was pretty interesting what the statistics showed and how little these low viscosity oils are effecting fuel economy anymore.

The speaker (in my interpretation at least) seemed to be calling for lubricant manufacturers to work with auto OEMs to find better ways to increase efficiency without decreasing durability.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Red Line claims a 2.9 for their HTHS, but they also claim a higher KV100 than you indicate, at 9.1, on their product page.



Yes, I read that too. Not sure why the oil tested out of the bottle should differ so much from what's on the website but it does and by quite some margin. It's worth bearing in mind that unlike KV100, HTHS is generally NOT a routine quality control test carried out at the oil blend plant. So whilst the oil in the table is still technically on-grade for 0W20 on KV100, the HTHS could easily be off-grade. It's probably unfair to pick on the Redline 0W20 as there are others in the VOA tables that are equally suspect.
 
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
There was a session at this year's STLE that was focused on the drastically diminishing returns of lower viscosity oils on fuel economy and the increasing difficulty in making an effective oil at the low viscosities. It was pretty interesting what the statistics showed and how little these low viscosity oils are effecting fuel economy anymore.

The speaker (in my interpretation at least) seemed to be calling for lubricant manufacturers to work with auto OEMs to find better ways to increase efficiency without decreasing durability.


If we are thinking of the same talk - then they also spoke about the increasing incremental cost where the thinner you go the more expensive it gets to gain 0.1% of FE. I agree that lubricants and engines probably will need to be engineered together. It may also make sense to divide the roles that lubricants do into smaller volume, more dedicated fluids (ie one oil for pistons and crankshaft, a separate one for the cams and something completely different for the turbo) this way they could really dial in on performance for each area of the engine.

The downside of the dedicated fluid approach is that DIY maintenance pretty much goes out the window - in which case you should just get free oil changes when you buy/lease a new car straight from the dealership.
 
Originally Posted By: Solarent
It may also make sense to divide the roles that lubricants do into smaller volume, more dedicated fluids (ie one oil for pistons and crankshaft, a separate one for the cams and something completely different for the turbo) this way they could really dial in on performance for each area of the engine.

The downside of the dedicated fluid approach is that DIY maintenance pretty much goes out the window - in which case you should just get free oil changes when you buy/lease a new car straight from the dealership.


LOL, I got utterly ridiculed about a decade and a half ago for suggesting that engines could/should be compartmentalised in such a manner.

Glad to have you in the camp 'though Solarent.
 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
Yes, I read that too. Not sure why the oil tested out of the bottle should differ so much from what's on the website but it does and by quite some margin.

Yes, and that's an extremely good question. While it's still in grade, if the KV100 is out that much (assuming that the lab result can be relied upon), we could wonder about the HTHS, too.
 
Are they always that much out of spec, or in other words, are there other samples where they are out of spec? Surely someone else will have had an oil analysis done on the red line 0w20?

You're assuming Red Line made the error, but so far nothing points blame anywhere.
 
We have made some progress on the 'compartmentalisation' front. My first car, an old 1100, used a single 20W50 for both the crankcase and gearbox. The system was basically awful with smooth gear changes nigh on impossible especially after the gearbox had chewed up the VII and thinned the oil. This was not helped by a lack of synchro on first & reverse. As a system, its passing will not be mourned.

Interestingly, if you found yourself driving in pouring rain and stuck at traffic lights, changing into first gear would often cause the windscreen wipers to stop dead in their tracks. Dropping the revs to get it in gear (remember no synchro) would slow the dynamo (yeah, remember those, the ones with worn carbon brushes?) which would drop the voltage to the wiper motor! Manys the time I have taken my life in my hands and driven away from traffic lights not being able to see through a rain drenched windscreen and hoping to God I didn't hit anything!
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Solarent
It may also make sense to divide the roles that lubricants do into smaller volume, more dedicated fluids (ie one oil for pistons and crankshaft, a separate one for the cams and something completely different for the turbo) this way they could really dial in on performance for each area of the engine.

The downside of the dedicated fluid approach is that DIY maintenance pretty much goes out the window - in which case you should just get free oil changes when you buy/lease a new car straight from the dealership.


LOL, I got utterly ridiculed about a decade and a half ago for suggesting that engines could/should be compartmentalised in such a manner.

Glad to have you in the camp 'though Solarent.


I must admit it wasn't my idea - something I heard an engine maker say at an industry event... But I still think it's a good idea - although we won't likely see anything like this for at least another decade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top