SAE 16 == 0w-16?

[blackman777]

This new standard is now official, and supposedly hits the market after Christmas, but I'm not clear on what it's supposed to be. Is it a 0w-16 oil? Or a straight 16 weight oil? I would guess "0w-16". I wonder why the SAE didn't just name it "0w-16" for the sake of consistency with ~100 years of oil markings. (shrug)

I also wonder if it's safe to run in my 3 cylinder insight which was designed from scratch to use superthin oil (with golf-ball surfaces to "hold" oil and minimize friction).

 

[bepperb]

I'm with you, it should be named 0w-16. Or, they should take this opportunity to revamp the whole winter rating scheme... because there's a big difference between a 0w-20 with a VI of 180 and another with a VI of 220, but since we're down to 0 we don't have any numbers left (well, -5w-20 I guess).

I'm wondering how easy it will be to find? I mean, if I had an insight I'd consider it too.

 

[dparm]

We've talked about it several times already:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2876417
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2728211
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2730434

 

[Hokiefyd]

SAE 16 indicates the high temperature grade. A 0W-20 and a 5W-20 both conform with the SAE 20 high temperature grade. Likewise, a 0w30 and a 5w30 and a 10w300 all conform with the SAE 30 grade. The "w" low temperature grades are separate from the high temperature grades. So presumably, there could be both 0W-16 and 5W-16 oils offered on the market. Or even 10W-16 I suppose (though probably unlikely).

 

[davebarnum]

Thin is in, and here's proof!

But really, wouldn't this be ideal for minimalizing startup wear? Could I throw it in my Civic and live happily ever after?

 

[bigt61]

You would think there wouldn't be much shear in a 10W-16.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: davebarnum
Thin is in, and here's proof!

But really, wouldn't this be ideal for minimalizing startup wear? Could I throw it in my Civic and live happily ever after?


Once I'm out of warranty, I would be inclined to rig up an oil pressure gauge and give it a try!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
I'm with you, it should be named 0w-16. Or, they should take this opportunity to revamp the whole winter rating scheme... because there's a big difference between a 0w-20 with a VI of 180 and another with a VI of 220, but since we're down to 0 we don't have any numbers left (well, -5w-20 I guess).

I'm wondering how easy it will be to find? I mean, if I had an insight I'd consider it too.


There's a big difference? Really?

What is funny is that the 180 VI 0w-20 may have a lower CCS/MRV than the 220 VI 0w-20. Their performance between 40 and 100C (where VI is calculated from) doesn't dictate their performance at extreme sub-zero temperatures.

 

[Hyde244]

Bear in mind, the new certifications rolling out will have two classes - one for new cars and one for "older" cars that are not rolling off of the line.

 

[bepperb]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: bepperb
I'm with you, it should be named 0w-16. Or, they should take this opportunity to revamp the whole winter rating scheme... because there's a big difference between a 0w-20 with a VI of 180 and another with a VI of 220, but since we're down to 0 we don't have any numbers left (well, -5w-20 I guess).

I'm wondering how easy it will be to find? I mean, if I had an insight I'd consider it too.


There's a big difference? Really?

What is funny is that the 180 VI 0w-20 may have a lower CCS/MRV than the 220 VI 0w-20. Their performance between 40 and 100C (where VI is calculated from) doesn't dictate their performance at extreme sub-zero temperatures.



There certainly is a big difference, double the VI spread between a 10w30 and a 5w30. Sure it doesn't dictate their performance at extreme sub-zero temperatures, but then automakers aren't using the winter grading for that purpose anymore.

My point being if the API is going to change the grading system a little, they might as well update the whole thing with less focus on extreme cold performance and more focus on VI... which is basically what that value is used for now in the 20 weight oils.

I mean really, what is the difference between a 5w-20 and a 0w-20 again? Cold weather performance? Is that why Honda and Toyota require 0w-20 and not 5w-20? If you've been here a month you should know that's not the case.

 

[Ken2]

My understanding is that they are splitting the 20 grade standard into two halves. The lower viscosity half will be called 16, and the higher viscosity half will be the new 20. Don't assume that the xW-16 is backwards compatible into every engine that now calls for xW-20. Wait and see what your engine maker says.

Thin is in. A 90,000 hp jet engine runs on 5 wt. oil. It all depends on the design of the engine. A bigger bearing with the same load has lower psi on that bearing, so the lighter oil can work well despite its lower film strength.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
I mean really, what is the difference between a 5w-20 and a 0w-20 again? Cold weather performance? Is that why Honda and Toyota require 0w-20 and not 5w-20? If you've been here a month you should know that's not the case.

Yes, the extreme cold weather performance will obviously be different. OVERKILL's point isn't that VI and cold cranking specs are totally, completely unrelated.

A very high VI oil is probably going to have some decent cold cranking numbers. It's certainly not likely to be a 10w-XX or a straight grade, notably by definition. But, a 0w-XX or 5w-XX doesn't guarantee a high VI on the other end of the coin. In either case, an oil company has to label its oil as what it is. If it's a 0w-XX, that's what it is to be sold as. And the 0w- part comes from actual cold cranking and MRV testing.

GC's VI is reasonable, by historical standards, but is far from ultra high. Yet, it gets the cold cranking side of things fine.

 

[bepperb]

I guess my point would be that the API grades are poorly done, and now they have been [censored] by automakers into something they are not. And what are they doing with the next new weight? Fixing it? No... more of the same.

With every step its another "what's the easiest way for us to do this single change" and not "this system is broken, let's start anew on this new weight".

I can see why people use jiffy lube, you walk into walmart and there are a dozen different oil weights (not to mention brands and synthetic and high mileage) and no book to tell you what your car needs.

 

[Garak]

I agree wholeheartedly on the fact that the grading system needs an update. But, we do have what we have, and there still are straight grades, 0w-XX high VI oils, and 0w-XX "low" VI oils.

But there is a book to tell people what their car needs; it's the manual.

And people have the choice to follow it, ignore it with good reason, or ignore it for no reason.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: bepperb


There certainly is a big difference, double the VI spread between a 10w30 and a 5w30. Sure it doesn't dictate their performance at extreme sub-zero temperatures, but then automakers aren't using the winter grading for that purpose anymore.


You didn't use a 10w30 and a 5w30, you gave specific examples, stating a 180 VI 0w-20 and a 220 VI 0w-20. So let's do the math:

M1 0w-20:
@100C: 8.7 cSt
@40C: 44.7 cSt
VI: 177 (PDS lists 173 oddly enough)

If it was 37.8 cSt @ 40C, it would have a VI of 220. That's 6.9 freakin' cSt!!!

Now, if we plug those values into a visc calculator:

@ 35C, the 220 VI oil is now 44.8 cSt. In 5 degrees it just thickened by the difference between the two oils at 40C. So if your opinion is that the there is a big difference between the 177 VI 0w-20 and the 220 VI 0w-20, then there is also a BIG difference between the thickness of your 0w-20 220VI oil at 35C vs 40C

And these would be "cold start" temperatures during the summer in many of the places these engines are being operated.

And for a bit of a reality check on the significance here, M1 0w-40 is 91.6 cSt at 35C. 46.8 cSt heavier than your 0w-20. THAT is significantly heavier; THAT is a BIG difference.


Quote:
My point being if the API is going to change the grading system a little, they might as well update the whole thing with less focus on extreme cold performance and more focus on VI... which is basically what that value is used for now in the 20 weight oils.


Those of us that live in places with extremely cold temperature certainly appreciate the significance of the 0w-xx designation. It most certainly means more to ME, the oil's performance at -35C (where viscosity is measured in the thousands and the difference between oils is measured in hundreds), then whether one oil is 7 cSt heavier than another on a summer "cold start".

Quote:
I mean really, what is the difference between a 5w-20 and a 0w-20 again? Cold weather performance? Is that why Honda and Toyota require 0w-20 and not 5w-20? If you've been here a month you should know that's not the case.


Better base stocks, longer oil life, better extreme cold temp performance, and eeking that 10th of a percentage point in fuel economy out of the engine for CAFE.

The difference between PP 0w-20 and 5w-20 is 2.5 cSt @ 40C. and 0.2 cSt at operating temperature. BOTH are heavier than the "ultra high VI" OEM 0w-20's. And probably heavier than some of their 5w-20's.

Is the grading system a bit vague? Yes. But we should be careful what we emphasize as "big differences" IMHO, because I don't think that at normal startup temperatures, the difference between a 180 VI 0w-20 and a 220 VI 0w-20 falls under that category. The difference between a 180 VI 0w-20 and a 180 VI 0w30 @ 40C (44.2 vs 58.9) is 14.7 cSt and even that I wouldn't call big.

Is there a big difference between a 5w-40, 20w-50 or Euro 5w30 over your typical Japanese spec 0w-20? Certainly. THAT is a BIG difference, and that difference is big regardless of VI.

 

[Solarent]

Originally Posted By: blackman777
This new standard is now official, and supposedly hits the market after Christmas, but I'm not clear on what it's supposed to be. Is it a 0w-16 oil? Or a straight 16 weight oil? I would guess "0w-16". I wonder why the SAE didn't just name it "0w-16" for the sake of consistency with ~100 years of oil markings. (shrug)

I also wonder if it's safe to run in my 3 cylinder insight which was designed from scratch to use superthin oil (with golf-ball surfaces to "hold" oil and minimize friction).



I don't believe you will see any licensed SN oils with SAE 16 until late 2016 when GF-6 comes out. I also don't think that you will see a 10W16 - although theoretically possible, most SAE 16 oils will be thin enough to get the 5W or 0W ratings, and an oil must be classified using the lowest winter rating that it qualifies for. (This is also why you don't see 10W20 either)

The primary reason for the SAE 16 grade is to keep it separate from the xW20, xw30 oils in GF-6 (the xW30 etc will be backwards compatible, xW16 will not).

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
I can see why people use jiffy lube, you walk into walmart and there are a dozen different oil weights (not to mention brands and synthetic and high mileage) and no book to tell you what your car needs.

Everyone has a book, it came with the car!

But yes, I hear you. There's a lookup guide for wipers, filters and bulbs but not for engine oil.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Solarent
Originally Posted By: blackman777
This new standard is now official, and supposedly hits the market after Christmas, but I'm not clear on what it's supposed to be. Is it a 0w-16 oil? Or a straight 16 weight oil? I would guess "0w-16". I wonder why the SAE didn't just name it "0w-16" for the sake of consistency with ~100 years of oil markings. (shrug)

I also wonder if it's safe to run in my 3 cylinder insight which was designed from scratch to use superthin oil (with golf-ball surfaces to "hold" oil and minimize friction).



I don't believe you will see any licensed SN oils with SAE 16 until late 2016 when GF-6 comes out. I also don't think that you will see a 10W16 - although theoretically possible, most SAE 16 oils will be thin enough to get the 5W or 0W ratings, and an oil must be classified using the lowest winter rating that it qualifies for. (This is also why you don't see 10W20 either)

The primary reason for the SAE 16 grade is to keep it separate from the xW20, xw30 oils in GF-6 (the xW30 etc will be backwards compatible, xW16 will not).


What about the good old days?

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: Garak
OVERKILL's point isn't that VI and cold cranking specs are totally, completely unrelated.


It isn't?

Well, I'll take the baton on that one.

Not even the best example for high-VI, high-vis products, but consider the following:
SpectraSyn 100 - 170VI, 1240cSt@40, 100cSt@100.
"oh, nice VI, where you from?"

vs

Random Mineral 10w30 - 115VI, 70cSt@40, 9.5cSt@100
"low Vi pleb, be gone from my sight at once!"


Out of those two, which product having which VI would you rather start your engine on mid-winter Alberta?

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
...Is the grading system a bit vague? Yes. But we should be careful what we emphasize as "big differences" IMHO, because I don't think that at normal startup temperatures, the difference between a 180 VI 0w-20 and a 220 VI 0w-20 falls under that category. The difference between a 180 VI 0w-20 and a 180 VI 0w30 @ 40C (44.2 vs 58.9) is 14.7 cSt and even that I wouldn't call big...


Just to inject a bit of automotive history, many of the big iron block Straight-eight's and V8's of the 50's speced 20W20 weight oils, so nothing is really new.