Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
In any case, 0W-16 held up really well in this TGDI engine.
It held up ... however:
"Comparing the wear rates using SAE 5w30 and SAE 0W-16 oils, lower viscosity lubricant resulted in higher wear across roughly two thirds of the engine operating conditions."
If you read the whole study, the same happened even in the "very cold" engine, which indicates that there were other factors than the viscosity. I mentioned the damaged engine components and unknown base-oil types.
Therefore, it's unclear if some of the results are related to the oil viscosity. Also, if they are related, it's unclear if it's because of the SAE 0W/5W part or SAE 16/30 part.
I think their whole goal was to make sure it was just the viscosity factor they were testing. They probably had the same company supply or blend both the oil weights if they both had exactly the same additive package. And of course some of the testing can be correlated to the 0W/5W part or the 16/30 part of the viscosity because they are doing cold and hot testing scenarios. They ran both oils through the same exact testing sequences, so it's a pretty good 'apples-to-apples' test comparing the effect of viscosity only. That was their whole goal, so I doubt they are going to leave any factors unchecked that would skew the goal.
From the Report:
"A series of in-field operating conditions were selected and the engine operated at these conditions using both a SAE 5w30 oil and a SAE 0W-16 oil with the same additive package."
"The engine was operated at these conditions using both the recommended lubricant grade for the engine - SAE 5w30, and a low viscosity lubricant - SAE 0W-16, to investigate effects of reduced viscosity. The same additive package was used in both oils to ensure observed differences were an artifact of viscosity grade only."
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Gokhan
In any case, 0W-16 held up really well in this TGDI engine.
It held up ... however:
"Comparing the wear rates using SAE 5w30 and SAE 0W-16 oils, lower viscosity lubricant resulted in higher wear across roughly two thirds of the engine operating conditions."
If you read the whole study, the same happened even in the "very cold" engine, which indicates that there were other factors than the viscosity. I mentioned the damaged engine components and unknown base-oil types.
Therefore, it's unclear if some of the results are related to the oil viscosity. Also, if they are related, it's unclear if it's because of the SAE 0W/5W part or SAE 16/30 part.
I think their whole goal was to make sure it was just the viscosity factor they were testing. They probably had the same company supply or blend both the oil weights if they both had exactly the same additive package. And of course some of the testing can be correlated to the 0W/5W part or the 16/30 part of the viscosity because they are doing cold and hot testing scenarios. They ran both oils through the same exact testing sequences, so it's a pretty good 'apples-to-apples' test comparing the effect of viscosity only. That was their whole goal, so I doubt they are going to leave any factors unchecked that would skew the goal.
From the Report:
"A series of in-field operating conditions were selected and the engine operated at these conditions using both a SAE 5w30 oil and a SAE 0W-16 oil with the same additive package."
"The engine was operated at these conditions using both the recommended lubricant grade for the engine - SAE 5w30, and a low viscosity lubricant - SAE 0W-16, to investigate effects of reduced viscosity. The same additive package was used in both oils to ensure observed differences were an artifact of viscosity grade only."
