16 wt coming very soon Honda 1st

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
7,065
Location
Arlington, Washington
Lubes and greases article.

SAE 16

SAE International has fully approved a
new viscosity grade, SAE 16, which
will take its place this spring in the SAE
J300 Standard as a lighter-weight alternative
to SAE 20 and other non-winter
engine oil grades.

The SAE J300 Engine Oil Viscosity
Classification task force agreed on the
limits for the new grade last summer,
according to Mike Covitch of Lubrizol,
who chairs the task force. SAE 16 then
was balloted through SAE Technical
Committee 1 on Engine Oils, and recently
advanced to full approval, he advises.
The new grade’s kinematic viscosity limits
were set at 6.1 mm2/s minimum to
s maximum, at 100 degrees C.
Its minimum high-temperature high-shear
rate viscosity is 2.3 mPa•sec at 150 C.
These limits got the official nod from the
SAE Fuels & Lubricants Council, which is
headed by Jim Linden of Linden
Consulting, at its Dec. 5 meeting in
Norfolk, Va.

As well, Covitch pointed out, the updated
SAE J300 standard will require tweaking
the kinematic viscosity limit at 100 C
for SAE 20 engine oils. The current minimum
KV100 limit for SAE xW-20 oils is
5.6 mm2/s, but that will rise to 6.9
mm2/s when the revised standard is published
in April.

SAE staff were asked to set an early
April 2013 publication date for the new
version of SAE J300, to give other industry
groups — such as the American
Petroleum Institute, the International
Lubricant Specification Advisory
Committee (ILSAC), the European
Automobile Manufacturers Association
(ACEA) and the technical association for
the European oil industry (ATIEL) — time
to revise their stay-in-grade requirements
for SAE xW-20 oils, if they wish to do so.
The concern, explained Covitch, is that
some current SAE xW-20 oils on the market
might shear out-of-grade according to
the new J300’s limits, whereas they were
classified as stay-in-grade under the old
standard. Although SAE J300 is a new-oil
viscosity classification standard, his task
force is aware that J300 is also used to
characterize a lubricant’s suitability for
continued use during service.

Covitch said API, ACEA and others who
set engine oil specifications have the
option of retaining the current 5.6 mm2/s
minimum KV100 for stay-in-grade viscosity
if they wish, but the new-oil minimum
for SAE xW-20 will be 6.9 mm2/s as of
April 2013.

Organizationally, the EOVC task force is
part of SAE TC-1, the forum where all balloting
to revise J300 is conducted.
Passing ballots next are balloted at the
Fuels & Lubricants Council level. Passing
the F&L ballot is the final stage for
approval of a new revision to SAE
Standards under its jurisdiction.
The new SAE 16 grade will have minimal
impact on the North American engine oil
market, since it is being specified by only
one automaker (Honda) for 2013 model
year engines. However, the advantages in
term of fuel economy will undoubtedly
encourage other OEMs to evaluate SAE
xW-16 engine oils in the future.
— Steve Swedberg
 
Originally Posted By: Danno
To avoid confusion with 15WXX oils. This new weight spec has been discussed previously.


I must have missed that in the previous topic.
 
Originally Posted By: Torrid
I still don't know why they are calling it a 0w-16 as opposed to 0w-15.


0/15 would be far too thin!! The CAFE bean counters must be celebrating as they need something thinner to earn a few more beans. I figure a straight 16 grade dino will suffice down South or a 5/16 up North until the end of the extended warranty. The OCI will have to be kept real short as the new ultra thin oil will need lots of anti wear additives to compensate.
 
Originally Posted By: skyship
0/15 would be far too thin!! The CAFE bean counters must be celebrating as they need something thinner to earn a few more beans. I figure a straight 16 grade dino will suffice down South or a 5/16 up North until the end of the extended warranty. The OCI will have to be kept real short as the new ultra thin oil will need lots of anti wear additives to compensate.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about do you?
 
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
That sounds like a real skyship answer. All arm flailing, no science.


We all know to basically ignore that guy.
 
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
That sounds like a real skyship answer. All arm flailing, no science.


We all know to basically ignore that guy.


I have been hesitant to put him on ignore on the off chance he might actually be a really hot dumb chick.
 
we should start a topic about the best people to put on ignore if you actually like to avoid all the blog posts and poop thats better on facebook or twitter than here.

oh and the just wrong and misleading replies like skyshi*

its sad when an informative topic gets weighed down by false and alarming replies that everyone feels the need to debunk..and makes the thread off-topic.

hint 0w16 can be thicker than some current 0w20's
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Torrid
I still don't know why they are calling it a 0w-16 as opposed to 0w-15.


0/15 failed the tests!
I thought Ford were in the lead as regards the thin oil game, so it's a surprise to see Honda trying to win the fuel economy race. Exactly the same game is being played by gearbox manufacturers as using thin oil or fluid with lots of AW & EP additives does reduce friction. The big advantage about thin auto box fluids is that the type of top quality synthetic fluids in use by ZF in particular do last a long time, so I'm more of a supporter of high efficiency boxes using thinner fluids than engines. Those new fluids that are made by Castrol and Fuchs might be expensive but they last a long time.
 
Funny thing, if someone mentions mixing a 5-20 with a 5-30 to get a "5-25", people jump and say THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "5-25"!

Well, maybe there is after all.
 
Originally Posted By: Torrid
I still don't know why they are calling it a 0w-16 as opposed to 0w-15.


I'm wondering if they went to 0W-16 rather than 0W-15 to allow more future designations, i.e., 16, 12, 8, 4 vs 15, 10, 5?!?
 
Originally Posted By: skyship


0/15 failed the tests!
I thought Ford were in the lead as regards the thin oil game, so it's a surprise to see Honda trying to win the fuel economy race...


Are we sure MPG is the driving force with thinner oils? It feels more like a mindless trend which would be illogical if this is the case. The easiest way to improve mpg (and in the process improve power, handling, and overall responsiveness) is reverse the trend in heavier vehicles that has been going on for over 20 years.

An easy place to start is making mpg- and performance-stunting large diameter wheels a dealer installed option. Let the cars and trucks be mpg-tested with lightest weight wheel/tire combos.
 
The significant difference in the SAE 16 grade is the min HTHS of 2.3 versus the SAE 20 min HTHS of 2.6. The KV specs that SAE has hung on it are silly:

Old 20 was 5.6 to 9.3 cSt
New 16 is 6.1 to 8.2
New 20 is 6.9 to 9.3, but can sometimes be 5.6 to 9.3.

So if you have an oil with KV100 of 7.7 and an HTHS of 2.7, is it a 16 or 20? It meets both specs, and can still be called a 16 because SAE does not call out a maximum HTHS for a grade.
 
Originally Posted By: Brule
Originally Posted By: skyship


0/15 failed the tests!
I thought Ford were in the lead as regards the thin oil game, so it's a surprise to see Honda trying to win the fuel economy race...


Are we sure MPG is the driving force with thinner oils? It feels more like a mindless trend which would be illogical if this is the case. The easiest way to improve mpg (and in the process improve power, handling, and overall responsiveness) is reverse the trend in heavier vehicles that has been going on for over 20 years.

An easy place to start is making mpg- and performance-stunting large diameter wheels a dealer installed option. Let the cars and trucks be mpg-tested with lightest weight wheel/tire combos.


I can assure you that the thin oil game is all about fuel economy, not engine life. The main manufacturers are making every effort to reduce weight and this also effects engine and gearbox design. Changing to a modern high tech German ZF power steering system even saves a few percent for a bus or truck and the latest ZF auto box is 6% more efficient than the best manual box and can change gears faster than a formula 1 race driver.
The real bad news is that most of the low to mid end car manufactuers are involved in a serious price war and are cutting component costs as fast as they can and that means back speccing cheaper bearings in particular and when combined with the use of cheap part dino 5/20 oils by some dealers the results will be increased bearing wear, although the serious testing done on new bearings will make sure they don't fail too often within the extended warranty. This back speccing is serious because it means that the newer cars won't last as long as cars that are more than about 5 years old, which was about the time the big players started changing bearing specs in a much more agressive manner. This silly bearings game is combining with the thin oil game in more basic cars and will lead to the era of a recyled post extended warranty vehicles.
 
Last edited:
You haven't been paying attention have you.

Honda have clearly stated that the push to xW-16 if for economy (CO2 emissions).

As you said early in the thread...been discussed before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top