0W-16 is here!

[SilverFusion2010]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
^^^ Same here. And Ford switched back to 5w30 from 5W-20 in some of their applications. It's obvious why they did that. So, the march towards lower viscosities didn't continue with them completely, and it hasn't with me either. I've never used a 0W-20 oil, and have only used a 5W-20 oil a limited number of times. None of the vehicles I have owned to this point have called for a 0W-20 oil. And I just don't see how a less than 20 wt oil can be a good thing for engines. To each his own I guess. With all these thin oils, I have to wonder about potential timing chain issues down the road.


215K on the 2007 Fusion at 10K OCIs with no timing chain problems.


Not surprised, that 2.5L is a mature, and proven design. API SN is probably extreme overkill lol

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: tig1
215K on the 2007 Fusion at 10K OCIs with no timing chain problems.


So .... That doesn't mean I'm supposed to follow someone's claim on the internet.

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky

...and you can bet that there will be a half a million posts proclaiming that 10w-60 "protects" better even if the engine isn't designed for it.

Really ?

Link us up with a handful of the half million then...

 

[Tony10s]

As someone posted in a past thread:

"Who let the thinnies out?"

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: tig1
215K on the 2007 Fusion at 10K OCIs with no timing chain problems.


So .... That doesn't mean I'm supposed to follow someone's claim on the internet.





That could go both ways.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Tony10s

So .... That doesn't mean I'm supposed to follow someone's claim on the internet.


Don't take his word for it. There's plenty info from the industry itself that backs-up tig's anecdote. You don't need to be a "thinnie" or otherwise to see where the trend is headed.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky

...and you can bet that there will be a half a million posts proclaiming that 10w-60 "protects" better even if the engine isn't designed for it.


Really ?

Link us up with a handful of the half million then...


Well to be honest, that's me. For more than a decade I ran Castrol Edge 10W60 in just about everything I owned, and yes because it protected better, and even though it was thicker than required.

I've now gone thinner than required, running an ILSAC 5W30 (M1) in a car that specs a Euro A3 oil. It does OK too, as long as I keep my hearing protection on or turn up the radio.

My mate, an excellent machinist, who owns many modern Japanese cars uses M1 5W50 in all of them, again because he believes it protects better.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: tig1

The 425K I have put on engines in recent years with 0-20 has proven to me this oil is very durable in all temps. -10F to +119F.


How is your hearing ?

 

[bigj_16]

Isn't the issue with timing chains now, because of the soot particles from DI?

 

[HondaBroMike]

Guys, just want to juxtapose the frame in on this discussion by saying I am very fortunate that I am using a full synthetic 0w-20 in my DI + turbo and non NA drivetrain, so glad cause as of May, the maker instituted full syn in all of it's service centers and I did my OCI there in July. So glad that transpired! luck has as much to do with ownership as skill and resources etc et al.

 

[Vuflanovsky]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky

...and you can bet that there will be a half a million posts proclaiming that 10w-60 "protects" better even if the engine isn't designed for it.


Really ?

Link us up with a handful of the half million then...


Yes Really...notice I said "there will be"...Shannow, are you part of the first handful (?) because if there's anything that's hyper-predictable on this board it's the thick / thin B.S. that more often has to do with entrenched opinions than anything empirical...sometimes complete with blanket statements that don't apply to mine, or yours, or whomevers. You don't need a link to figure that out....

 

[SilverFusion2010]

There is a lot of truth in, "as thin as possible, but as thick as necessary ".

It's all application dependent.

With thinner oils the additive pack is more important.

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: tig1
215K on the 2007 Fusion at 10K OCIs with no timing chain problems.

So .... That doesn't mean I'm supposed to follow someone's claim on the internet.

That could go both ways.

No, not really because I couldn't care less if anyone follows what I do when it comes to motor oil. What someone else uses doesn't affect me at all. And it's just motor oil ... What kind of motor oil I use or someone else uses is not very important in the overall scheme of things.

Originally Posted By: wemay
Don't take his word for it. There's plenty info from the industry itself that backs-up tig's anecdote. You don't need to be a "thinnie" or otherwise to see where the trend is headed.


Whatever you say. People can make the same claims about engine longevity with various kinds of oil ... "thick" oils, "thin" oils, conventional, synthetic blend, etc. I don't know how I survived all those years running nothing but 10w30 or 5w30. In the end, none of this is very important in life.

You guys take care.

 

[wemay]

You too Tony10s

 

[JustN89]

I can't believe that this argument is not just still ongoing, but that it has this much vitriol in it. All while, in reality, this 0W-16 will probably never lead to an oil-related engine failure in an engine specced for that viscosity.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky

...and you can bet that there will be a half a million posts proclaiming that 10w-60 "protects" better even if the engine isn't designed for it.


Really ?

Link us up with a handful of the half million then...


Yes Really...notice I said "there will be"...Shannow, are you part of the first handful (?) because if there's anything that's hyper-predictable on this board it's the thick / thin B.S. that more often has to do with entrenched opinions than anything empirical...sometimes complete with blanket statements that don't apply to mine, or yours, or whomevers. You don't need a link to figure that out....


Nope, it's just that a whole bunch of you need to resort to artificial strawman statements to try to bolster your position, or denigrate others.

* half a million will pipe up advocating 10W60...show me.
* pile of failed engines
* elephant's graveyard of failed engines.

Just garbage, not presenting facts, just strawmen...and logical fallacies don't bolster your statements. And they certainly aren't empirical in any manner, are they ?

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Vuflanovsky

...and you can bet that there will be a half a million posts proclaiming that 10w-60 "protects" better even if the engine isn't designed for it.


Really ?

Link us up with a handful of the half million then...


Yes Really...notice I said "there will be"...Shannow, are you part of the first handful (?) because if there's anything that's hyper-predictable on this board it's the thick / thin B.S. that more often has to do with entrenched opinions than anything empirical...sometimes complete with blanket statements that don't apply to mine, or yours, or whomevers. You don't need a link to figure that out....


Nope, it's just that a whole bunch of you need to resort to artificial strawman statements to try to bolster your position, or denigrate others.

* half a million will pipe up advocating 10W60...show me.
* pile of failed engines
* elephant's graveyard of failed engines.

Just garbage, not presenting facts, just strawmen...and logical fallacies don't bolster your statements. And they certainly aren't empirical in any manner, are they ?


You quoting out-of-context is a logical fallacy...

Pointing out that millions of Fords and Hondas never suffered any verifiable/excessive wear from SJ-vintage 5W-20 onward isn't a logical fallacy...

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Pointing out that millions of Fords and Hondas never suffered any verifiable/excessive wear from SJ-vintage 5W-20 onward isn't a logical fallacy...


I have always maintained that even if the engine is more worn, and outlives the chassis, then the tradeoff of a few gallons is worth it, haven't I ?

For example, the Honda papers refer to it as "acceptable" increased wear.

"Pile of failed engines" isn't reflective of that are they ?

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh


Sure, after you show us the secret elephant-graveyard of late-90's/early 2000's Hondas and Fords that died prematurely from running SL era 5W-20's that were probably vastly inferior to the 0W-16's that will be out...

 

[PimTac]

It will never end. Way back when, the 40 weight users would denigrate the 30 weight users for using such a thin oil.

Yesterday I ran the Mazda around town. Stopped to get the mail and as I stood outside the car I noticed how quiet running it was. 0w-20 to boot. I’ll stick with it.

 

[bbhero]

I think a 0w20 typically has a better basestock and higher percentage of full synthetic. If I were to run a 0w20 I would like it to have a HTHS of 2.7+. And this is out there available for sale.