0w14 coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ram_man

Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Messages
4,023
We have a guy at work installing new oil tanks and he told us today that they are coming out with 0w14 in the next year or 2.
Here I am am thinking 0w20 is to thin and we are going even thinner!
What's everyones take on this I personally am skeptical but all will probably be ok for the majority of the motoring public.
 
Originally Posted By: Leo99
Why do people "think" it's too thin?


Because great granddaddy used to run 20w-50 in the worn out old Plymouth. And if it was good enough for great granddaddy in the old plymouth, goshdarnit, it's good enough for my brand new Toyota!!!

Remember, Today's engines with tighter tolerances, better manufacturing processes ... are literally completely the same as the engines of 70 years ago and the random oil "logic" chosen by people who did not have access to information such as BITOG is much , much more significant than the engineers that designed the engines.
 
It should be fine in cars calling for it. I won't use it if any of my fleet if they get back spec'd for it though.
 
I never had an issue with thinking 0W20 was too thin. Most cars I've had I used 5W20 or 5W30. Wasn't too hard for my dad to accept it either. He said, "well I didn't design it, so who am I to say what's correct."
 
How will thinner oil effect timing chain guide wear? Timing chain guides seems to be the only semi-common oil related failures I find when researching SUV's to buy.
 
Not sure why so many anti-thin oil threads lately...dont like it dont use it!!

I thick the thick oil crowd is scared their oils will soon be harder to find lol...
 
ILSAC GF-6B (xW-16, xW-12, and xW-8) as well GF-6A (other viscosity grades) have been delayed due to problems in developing test engines. They won't be available for another three years. There is a lot of information on this here and on various GF-6 Web sites.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
How will thinner oil effect timing chain guide wear? Timing chain guides seems to be the only semi-common oil related failures I find when researching SUV's to buy.


Timing chain wear is more from the makeup of the oil than the thickness of oil.

They are tossing chains because manufacturers that are typically used to making pushrod V engine (GM and their 3.6 that tosses its cam chain) are "new" to making overhead cam V engines and are trying to do so cheaply.
 
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
ILSAC GF-6B (xW-16, xW-12, and xW-8) as well GF-6A (other viscosity grades) have been delayed due to problems in developing test engines. They won't be available for another three years. There is a lot of information on this here and on various GF-6 Web sites.


This suggests to me that there is a practical limit to how thin an oil can be and still be effective.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Leo99
Why do people "think" it's too thin?


Because great granddaddy used to run 20w-50 in the worn out old Plymouth. And if it was good enough for great granddaddy in the old plymouth, goshdarnit, it's good enough for my brand new Toyota!!!

Remember, Today's engines with tighter tolerances, better manufacturing processes ...


Define "Tighter Tolerance"...

BTW Neither of my great granddads ever owned a car(yes I remember them both)...
 
Originally Posted By: Kuato
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
ILSAC GF-6B (xW-16, xW-12, and xW-8) as well GF-6A (other viscosity grades) have been delayed due to problems in developing test engines. They won't be available for another three years. There is a lot of information on this here and on various GF-6 Web sites.


This suggests to me that there is a practical limit to how thin an oil can be and still be effective.


Engines are still being designed that can use 0W-16... From what I've read those will have wider bearings than most current engines, giving additional film area to distribute the load...
 
Originally Posted By: TFB1
Engines are still being designed that can use 0W-16... From what I've read those will have wider bearings than most current engines, giving additional film area to distribute the load...


Almost definitely the case. More bearing surface is the easiest way to reduce the required oil viscosity to achieve the same wear rate.
 
Originally Posted By: TFB1
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Leo99
Why do people "think" it's too thin?


Because great granddaddy used to run 20w-50 in the worn out old Plymouth. And if it was good enough for great granddaddy in the old plymouth, goshdarnit, it's good enough for my brand new Toyota!!!

Remember, Today's engines with tighter tolerances, better manufacturing processes ...


Define "Tighter Tolerance"...

BTW Neither of my great granddads ever owned a car(yes I remember them both)...
Yeah. I would say casting process is the most improved the some consistency from CNC process. If the block is distorted you main cap line bore will be pretty ugly regardless of your automated boring/hone machining. I think Mains clear in lil Japanese engine are under your old nominal 3mils and down to as tight as 0.0006" radially. This quality of machining has been achievable for over 50 years. Its the bulk processes and pushed designs where things get screwed up. Ive have more noisey junky engine in the last 10 years than in the previous 30. Slipper skirt zero deck pistons - BAHHHH!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
Napa Proformer Oil Filter and M1 5w20
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Nesterenko
cammyfive79
Transcript of a conversation with Mazda regarding "recommended" vs "required" oil viscosity
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
Fish Fry
S
2013 Mazda 3 2.0L Skyactiv Oil and Engine Flush Questions
Replies
13
Views
2K
nicholas
M
Morals and working with the public
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
John105
G
Shadyish "performance shop" - Suspectful of Wrong Oil in GDI Engine
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
wemay
Back
Top