This is interesting. The quest to save carbon footprint has coughed up GF6A GF6B, one example the 0w16's ("AFE's")
It's said the use of such low visc oil can save 1-1.5 maybe 2% on fuel usage for same miles (in the lab).
But the % of vehicles spec'd to use such oil is very low.
The use of DRL's is said to be about 1% (avg across all vehicles). Many DRL's turn off at night, some don't.
To save on carbon footprint, would it just not be more fruitful to take the gains now on 1% for ditching DRL's vs the very small % of vehicles actually running low visc motor oils (just because the idiot label says 0w16 that does not mean people are using it)? Lubrizol and SAE do say the these GF6's may take 10+ yrs to become dominant, but no guarantee as things move more to EV's (which btw is not the future of vehicle power, fuel cell is).
Or, is it just the case that whatever safety the DRL's provide are worth the +1% in fuel consumption?
It's said the use of such low visc oil can save 1-1.5 maybe 2% on fuel usage for same miles (in the lab).
But the % of vehicles spec'd to use such oil is very low.
The use of DRL's is said to be about 1% (avg across all vehicles). Many DRL's turn off at night, some don't.
To save on carbon footprint, would it just not be more fruitful to take the gains now on 1% for ditching DRL's vs the very small % of vehicles actually running low visc motor oils (just because the idiot label says 0w16 that does not mean people are using it)? Lubrizol and SAE do say the these GF6's may take 10+ yrs to become dominant, but no guarantee as things move more to EV's (which btw is not the future of vehicle power, fuel cell is).
Or, is it just the case that whatever safety the DRL's provide are worth the +1% in fuel consumption?