SAE 15 weight

[Audi Junkie]

Does someone want to comment on this highly speculative document...Dr.Hass perhaps?

Honda and others have been working with API.doc

Honda and others have been working with API & SAE to develop new standards for a 0W-10 viscosity category. Proposed standards have now been released. It is important to note that SOME engines do not tolerate low viscosity well. This applies to virtually all older engine designs that still use higher tension piston rings and other older technology. In those applications, even the current 5W-20 can accelerate wear. Studies have shown increased bearing, ring and cam wear from the use of 5W-20 in applications that were not designed or upgraded to accommodate thinner oil.


Proposed SAE Viscosity Rating Update

The following charts include the new proposed standards for SAE 5, 10 and 15 viscosity categories. At present, there is no SAE 5 or 15 and SAE 10 is very poorly defined (SAE 5W, 10W and 15W are very different ratings).

These new categories have the same standards at 100 C/212o F as SAE 20. The only difference is in the 150 C/302o F HTHS requirements. Honda has been very involved in the development of these proposed standards and is already using what they refer to as a 0W-10 in some factory fills in Japan. There has been mention of a 10W-10 also being in use in some specialty applications.

 

[Audi Junkie]

SAE J300 Viscosity Classification ASTM D-445 (including proposed new SAE 5, 10, 15)
SAE Viscosity Grade Minimum Kinematic
Viscosity Maximum Kinematic Viscosity Minimum High-Shear-Rate Viscosity
5
Proposed 5.6 cst @100 C/212o F 9.3 cst @100 C/212o F 1.7 mPa-s @ 150°C
10
Proposed 5.6 cst @100 C/212o F 9.3 cst @100 C/212o F 2.0 mPa-s @ 150°C
15
Proposed 5.6 cst @100 C/212o F 9.3 cst @100 C/212o F 2.3 mPa-s @ 150°C
20 5.6 cst @100 C/212o F 9.3 cst @100 C/212o F 2.6 mPa-s @ 150°C
30 9.3 cst @100 C/212o F 12.5 cst @100 C/212o F 2.9 mPa-s @ 150°C
40 12.5 cst @100 C/212o F 16.3 cst @100 C/212o F 2.9 mPa-s @ 150°C
50 16.3 cst @100 C/212o F 21.9 cst @100 C/212o F 3.7 mPa-s @ 150°C
60 21.9 cst @100 C/212o F 26.1 cst @100 C/212o F 3.7 mPa-s @ 150°C


SAE Viscosity Grade Low Temp Cranking
ASTM D-5293 Low Temp Pumping
ASTM D-4684 Minimum Low-Shear-Rate Kinematic Visc.
0W* 6,200 mPa-s Max
@ -35C 60,000 mPa-s Max
@ -40 C 3.8 mm2/s @ 100°C
5W* 6,600 mPa-s Max
@ -30 C 60,000 mPa-s Max
@ -35 C 3.8 mm2/s @ 100°C
10W* 7,000 mPa-s Max
@ -25 C 60,000 mPa-s Max
@ -30 C 4.1 mm2/s @ 100°C
15W 7,000 mPa-s Max
@ -20 C 60,000 mPa-s Max
@ -25 C 5.6 mm2/s @ 100°C
20W 9,500 mPa-s Max
@ -15 C 60,000 mPa-s Max
@ -20 C 5.6 mm2/s @ 100°C
25W 13,000 mPa-s Max
@ -10 C 60,000 mPa-s Max
@ -15 C 9.3 mm2/s @ 100°C

 

[XS650]

Reformatted to be human readable

SAE J300 Viscosity Classification ASTM D-445 (including proposed new SAE 5, 10, 15)
Code:


SAE Grade Minimum Kin Visc Max Kin Visc Min High-Shear-Rate Visc

5 Proposed 5.6 cst @100 C/212o F 9.3 cst @100 C/212o F 1.7 mPa-s @ 150°C

10 Proposed 5.6 cst @100 C/212o F 9.3 cst @100 C/212o F 2.0 mPa-s @ 150°C

15 Proposed 5.6 cst @100 C/212o F 9.3 cst @100 C/212o F 2.3 mPa-s @ 150°C

20 5.6 cst @100 C/212o F 9.3 cst @100 C/212o F 2.6 mPa-s @ 150°C

30 9.3 cst @100 C/212o F 12.5 cst @100 C/212o F 2.9 mPa-s @ 150°C

40 12.5 cst @100 C/212o F 16.3 cst @100 C/212o F 2.9 mPa-s @ 150°C

50 16.3 cst @100 C/212o F 21.9 cst @100 C/212o F 3.7 mPa-s @ 150°C

60 21.9 cst @100 C/212o F 26.1 cst @100 C/212o F 3.7 mPa-s @ 150°C





SAE Grade L Tmp Crnk ASTM D-5293 L Temp Pmp ASTM D-4684 Min Low-Shr-Rte K Visc.

0W* 6,200 mPa-s Max @ -35 C 60,000 mPa-s Max @ -40 C 3.8 mm2/s @ 100°C

5W* 6,600 mPa-s Max @ -30 C 60,000 mPa-s Max @ -35 C 3.8 mm2/s @ 100°C

10W* 7,000 mPa-s Max @ -25 C 60,000 mPa-s Max @ -30 C 4.1 mm2/s @ 100°C

15W 7,000 mPa-s Max @ -20 C 60,000 mPa-s Max @ -25 C 5.6 mm2/s @ 100°C

20W 9,500 mPa-s Max @ -15 C 60,000 mPa-s Max @ -20 C 5.6 mm2/s @ 100°C

25W 13,000 mPa-s Max @ -10 C 60,000 mPa-s Max @ -15 C 9.3 mm2/s @ 100°C


It looks like all the proposed 5, 19 and 15 weights do is allow increasingly mediocre high temp high shear performance. By the standard 100C viscosity tests, they are still 20W. Has SAE decided that since cars aren't dropping like flies with high quality xW-20 oils that some lower quality oils should be marketed with lower SAE numbers?

 

[Audi Junkie]

Thanks.

Reduced HT/HS with consistent +100C kinematic has no apparent benefit and is counter-intuitive.

I don't think the author knows what he's talking about.

I was banned for a week from another forum for daring to question the validity of the statement that "SAE is coming out with 5 weight and 15 weight oils".

The other place is really a bunch of weirdos running an automotive forum where their technical standards are not quite up to their social standards....even at that....I have to stop now.

 

[MolaKule]

There is alot of misinformation out there, and then people come here for clarification and it takes 50 posts or more to debunk the misinformation and educate them.

If the question is, "Can an engine be designed to work with thinner oils," the answer is yes. High revving, small clearance engines could use these oils.

The manf. are trying to squeeze out every bit of mpg from their vehicles because of ridiculous government mandates.

However, I think we will eventually see a point of diminishing returns unless some chemistry or metallurgy technology comes along to change that.

 

[Geonerd]

I'm pretty sure that (low) HTHS is most responsible for reduced bearing drag. Low kinematic numbers may limit oil pump loss, but that's relatively insignificant compared to bearing shear and drag.

And it goes without saying that any oil with HTHS values of 2.3, 2.0 or 1.7(!) is going to be marginal or even outright destructive if run in older engines.