New SAE 16wt for GF-6B
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
thanks, buster; great read!
Thanks, buster!
Thanks for that! A great read.
Australians would really enjoy a 0w-16...as a washer fluid.
Australians would really enjoy a 0w-16...as a washer fluid.
Good catch, Buster, thanks! Time and oils march on. The cleaver I see hanging over our heads as lubricants grow more complex is,"You, Joe Public, are too dumb to change your own oil so we have to set up certified stations to do it for you."
Nice Buster, just a question, if 0-20 and 0-30 is going to be the oil with new cars will dino be gone, so much for low cost up keep??
Interesting article.
I'm a little confused on the SAE 15/16 issue - wouldn't the new spec be 0W-15/16 anyway? So why would someone confuse it with 15W-40? Unless they're just calling it SAE 15/16, which doesn't seem right either.
I'm also a little confused on the GF-6A/B issue. Are they saying that other grades beside SAE 16 will have reduced HTHS limits? Because if it's only SAE 16, then there seems to be little reason to create an A and B version - people just need to know not to put SAE 16 in their car if it doesn't call for it.
I'm a little confused on the SAE 15/16 issue - wouldn't the new spec be 0W-15/16 anyway? So why would someone confuse it with 15W-40? Unless they're just calling it SAE 15/16, which doesn't seem right either.
I'm also a little confused on the GF-6A/B issue. Are they saying that other grades beside SAE 16 will have reduced HTHS limits? Because if it's only SAE 16, then there seems to be little reason to create an A and B version - people just need to know not to put SAE 16 in their car if it doesn't call for it.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Good catch, Buster, thanks! Time and oils march on. The cleaver I see hanging over our heads as lubricants grow more complex is,"You, Joe Public, are too dumb to change your own oil so we have to set up certified stations to do it for you."
I agree.
Good catch, Buster, thanks! Time and oils march on. The cleaver I see hanging over our heads as lubricants grow more complex is,"You, Joe Public, are too dumb to change your own oil so we have to set up certified stations to do it for you."
I agree.
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
Interesting article.
I'm a little confused on the SAE 15/16 issue - wouldn't the new spec be 0W-15/16 anyway? So why would someone confuse it with 15W-40? Unless they're just calling it SAE 15/16, which doesn't seem right either.
I'm also a little confused on the GF-6A/B issue. Are they saying that other grades beside SAE 16 will have reduced HTHS limits? Because if it's only SAE 16, then there seems to be little reason to create an A and B version - people just need to know not to put SAE 16 in their car if it doesn't call for it.
The issue is with backwards compatibility, the API doesn't like to leave too much time between specification upgrades, and so this new oil spec (which will be for 2016 engines and beyond) won't work in older engine designs. Oil companies will need to continue to produce oils for those of us who drive 10-15 year old cars. So if they say that SN is obsolete for newer engines, operators manuals won't be able to say something like:
Use a high quality motor oil bearing the API certification marks
I agree with Jim, it may come to the fact that manufacturers may require dealership or certified oil changes and we may see a lot of warranty issues in the future from people using the wrong type of oil. Talk about a potential time bomb for consumers....
Interesting article.
I'm a little confused on the SAE 15/16 issue - wouldn't the new spec be 0W-15/16 anyway? So why would someone confuse it with 15W-40? Unless they're just calling it SAE 15/16, which doesn't seem right either.
I'm also a little confused on the GF-6A/B issue. Are they saying that other grades beside SAE 16 will have reduced HTHS limits? Because if it's only SAE 16, then there seems to be little reason to create an A and B version - people just need to know not to put SAE 16 in their car if it doesn't call for it.
The issue is with backwards compatibility, the API doesn't like to leave too much time between specification upgrades, and so this new oil spec (which will be for 2016 engines and beyond) won't work in older engine designs. Oil companies will need to continue to produce oils for those of us who drive 10-15 year old cars. So if they say that SN is obsolete for newer engines, operators manuals won't be able to say something like:
Use a high quality motor oil bearing the API certification marks
I agree with Jim, it may come to the fact that manufacturers may require dealership or certified oil changes and we may see a lot of warranty issues in the future from people using the wrong type of oil. Talk about a potential time bomb for consumers....
Yes it does if you do not live in farm/rural country where you drive on hways 95% of the time. In real life stop and go stuff like the Dan Ryan would make 10k stupid. Subaru is $80 with 7500 and severe 3750 for the 0-20 synthetic.
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Nice Buster, just a question, if 0-20 and 0-30 is going to be the oil with new cars will dino be gone, so much for low cost up keep??
Does synthetic oil really cost more?
Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Nice Buster, just a question, if 0-20 and 0-30 is going to be the oil with new cars will dino be gone, so much for low cost up keep??
Does synthetic oil really cost more?
Last edited:
Thanks Buster.
So the SAE feels using another number that still bears no relationship to an actual viscosity measure will be less confusing to the consumer. Only a committee would come up with a new grade nomenclature of "16".
As I understand it the new grade will apply to any oil with a HTHSV That will make it more difficult for us to actually know just how thick or thin an bottle of SAE 16 actual will be.
It will be fun!
So the SAE feels using another number that still bears no relationship to an actual viscosity measure will be less confusing to the consumer. Only a committee would come up with a new grade nomenclature of "16".
As I understand it the new grade will apply to any oil with a HTHSV That will make it more difficult for us to actually know just how thick or thin an bottle of SAE 16 actual will be.
It will be fun!
Originally Posted By: supercity
Interesting
Their reasoning for SAE 16 rather than SAE 15 is weak. We have SAE 20 and 20w-x lubes now.
I agree. Most people would be able to tell the difference between 15w-40 and 0w-15 when they see it on the label. If they can't, then perhaps they shouldn't be driving.
Interesting
Their reasoning for SAE 16 rather than SAE 15 is weak. We have SAE 20 and 20w-x lubes now.
I agree. Most people would be able to tell the difference between 15w-40 and 0w-15 when they see it on the label. If they can't, then perhaps they shouldn't be driving.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
As I understand it the new grade will apply to any oil with a HTHSV That will make it more difficult for us to actually know just how thick or thin an bottle of SAE 16 actual will be.
It will be fun!
One easy solution to the problem would be a requirement that the actual HTHSV of the oil be revealed somewhere on the bottle.
As I understand it the new grade will apply to any oil with a HTHSV That will make it more difficult for us to actually know just how thick or thin an bottle of SAE 16 actual will be.
It will be fun!
One easy solution to the problem would be a requirement that the actual HTHSV of the oil be revealed somewhere on the bottle.
that would be frustrating for a label design perspective. There are already so many things that have to go on the bottle. IMO the best place for this information is on the PDS.
too bad the SAE doesn't seem to want to standardize the PDS reported testing. that would make almost everyone's life easier I think.
too bad the SAE doesn't seem to want to standardize the PDS reported testing. that would make almost everyone's life easier I think.
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Thanks Buster.
So the SAE feels using another number that still bears no relationship to an actual viscosity measure will be less confusing to the consumer. Only a committee would come up with a new grade nomenclature of "16".
As I understand it the new grade will apply to any oil with a HTHSV div>
It's stupid, isn't it to keep tinkering with a "system" that's so arbitrary, and not a system ?
They are having to cram more "space" into the smaller end of the spectrum...ultimately, they will have to go negative.
A simple rating, of some cold temperature performance parameter (in real numbers), HTHS (real numbers), and (something like) an API performance rating would help the consumer, once educated to make a rational choice...the highest 20 and the very lowest 30 are really the same, and a new rating system would show that.
Thanks Buster.
So the SAE feels using another number that still bears no relationship to an actual viscosity measure will be less confusing to the consumer. Only a committee would come up with a new grade nomenclature of "16".
As I understand it the new grade will apply to any oil with a HTHSV div>
It's stupid, isn't it to keep tinkering with a "system" that's so arbitrary, and not a system ?
They are having to cram more "space" into the smaller end of the spectrum...ultimately, they will have to go negative.
A simple rating, of some cold temperature performance parameter (in real numbers), HTHS (real numbers), and (something like) an API performance rating would help the consumer, once educated to make a rational choice...the highest 20 and the very lowest 30 are really the same, and a new rating system would show that.
MolaKule
Staff member
The reason given for the 16 weight was that 15W might be confused with a 15WXX
and to make labelling larger and more distinct.
Hey guys, the average Joe ain't as savy about this here stuff as are we OilFreaks.
Hey guys, the average Joe ain't as savy about this here stuff as are we OilFreaks.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky