Thicker oil civilization is taking over

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
2,909
Location
WA
Extensive research has shown that the number of thickies are consistently increasing and within few years, number of thinies will be approaching 0W
shocked2.gif
grin2.gif


The following is a thickies Meeting Minutes secretly leaked by one of the members:

resistance is futile

01.gif


Edit:
fixed secretary misspelling
lol.gif
 
Last edited:
Thanks for correction!
grin2.gif


Originally Posted by Ducked
FUTIAL?

Don't think that's a thing.
 
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Extensive research has shown that the number of thickies are consistently increasing and within few years, number of thinnies will be approaching 0W
shocked2.gif
grin2.gif


The following is a thickies Meeting Minutes secretly leaked by one of the members:

resistance is futile

01.gif




02.gif
 
I don't mind thin at all on the newer engines, where design and material science engineering really shines. I just don't know about those super tight engines with 3-litre and less sumps.
 
Originally Posted by JLTD
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Extensive research has shown that the number of thickies are consistently increasing and within few years, number of thinnies will be approaching 0W
shocked2.gif
grin2.gif


The following is a thickies Meeting Minutes secretly leaked by one of the members:

resistance is futile

01.gif




02.gif



Nice signature. Lol.
 
Can't speak for the rest of the gestalt (which therefore isn't) but I wouldn't fancy "assimilating" any of those skinny oil people.

Viscosity of a mixture skews toward the lower viscosity component, to the detriment and dilution of the whole.

Reason to be suspicious of Borg-Warner?
 
smirk.gif
In Tennessee we could run straight 30 wgt from about April thru Nov....we never blew an engine in the 1950s or 60s....Mankind way over engineers ideas sometimes...imho..but--it is good we have newer oils to keep us confused and talking it to death...
 
I hear the ladies say thicker is better too.

But seriously what do they know about motor oil?
 
I choose to not be part of either camp but it seems the thick crowd is more upset about thin oils than the thin crowd is upset at thick oil. Its a personal preference, so to say x is better than y is strictly opinion and not fact. Unless you can prove it.
 
I don't think that HTHS is everything (in normal applications). I think it depends on how well the oil maintains a protective film and that we shouldn't be simply using an oil because it has more headroom / higher HTHS assuming it's offering better protection than an oil that has a lower HTHS number but a better additive package that is better at providing a protective film due to a tough add-pack over a thicker base oil. Case & Point, Amsoil just launched a 0w16 oil with a HTHS of 2.38 which would mean by the logic of the thicker crowd that these engines should see abnormally high wear rates because it's below the 2.6 minimum level and I don't think this will be the case because the add-pack in the oil does the required job of keeping a protective film in between parts to keep them separated along with the engineering ensuring that a 0w16 oil will provide what is needed while still being able to take advantage of the fuel economy benefits a thinner oil can provide.

Just my $0.02.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by StevieC
I don't think that HTHS is everything (in normal applications). I think it depends on how well the oil maintains a protective film and that we shouldn't be simply using an oil because it has more headroom / higher HTHS assuming it's offering better protection than an oil that has a lower HTHS number but a better additive package that is better at providing a protective film due to a tough add-pack over a thicker base oil. Case & Point, Amsoil just launched a 0w16 oil with a HTHS of 2.38 which would mean by the logic of the thicker crowd that these engines should see abnormally high wear rates because it's below the 2.6 minimum level and I don't think this will be the case because the add-pack in the oil does the required job of keeping a protective film in between parts to keep them separated along with the engineering ensuring that a 0w16 oil will provide what is needed while still being able to take advantage of the fuel economy benefits a thinner oil can provide.

Just my $0.02.


An engine designed for xW-16 will generally have wider bearings and other design considerations to allow for the lower HTHS visc. The additive package fortification is more to deal with the result of more surfaces running in mixed/boundary.

I would not expect to see abnormally high wear rates in an engine designed and tested on xW-16. Using it in an application that does not allow for such a grade and calls for something significantly heavier would potentially be problematic however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top