Citgo Supergard 0W-16

Status
Not open for further replies.
They don't want to 'confuse' people with '15W' oils, so it is being called '16'.

I think it's stupid - it's just a slightly thinner 0W-20 with a lower HT/HS value.

Call it 0W-20 'light' or something, not a new number!
 
MRV @ -35 is good, but the pour point isn't all that great for a full syn. I'm not sure I see the purpose with this variant. Maybe in the future.
 
I don't get why they're making 0w16, what can call for it? I haven't heard of any.

Sounds like expensive chainsaw lube to me.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I don't get why they're making 0w16, what can call for it? I haven't heard of any.

Sounds like expensive chainsaw lube to me.
The new cars will be using it there are new EPA CAFE standards.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I don't get why they're making 0w16, what can call for it? I haven't heard of any.

Sounds like expensive chainsaw lube to me.


I heard I few months ago honda was the one pushing for 0w-16. I guess time will tell
 
Originally Posted By: tig1
Why 0-16? Why not 0-15, or 0-17? I don't get it.


Where you been tig1 ?

The Japanese OEMs, spearheaded by Honda wanted lower viscosity grades. Honda even sold those oils well before they had a grade available, and Toyota in one version of TGMO appear purposely to have made it shear down to around 2.4 early in the OCI (results reported by CATERHAM).

"20" was an incredibly broad range, which meant that it was virtually impossible to shear out of grade, thus they mythology that "20s were incredibly shear stable".

So the SAE split 20 into a couple of parts, and introduced 16, 12, and 8 grades, all with progressively lower HTHS, and some overlap in KV.

They chose 16, 12, and 8, so as not to confuse with the "W" ratings, like 15W, 10W, 5W.

Oils have been on the market for quite a reasonable amount of time, and as can be seen by the PDS of this, Ravenol, and the others, the VI is quite "moderate", meaning that they can get their HTHS derived economy without pushing for stratospheric VIs.

Assuming that this is brewed to the lower range of the allowable HTHS, it's ratio of high shear to low shear viscosity (Viscosity Modifier Impact) is quite small compared to the Japanese 0W20s.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I don't get why they're making 0w16, what can call for it? I haven't heard of any.

Sounds like expensive chainsaw lube to me.


Motul has 0w15 in their 300V range.
 
Originally Posted By: Nederlander75
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I don't get why they're making 0w16, what can call for it? I haven't heard of any.

Sounds like expensive chainsaw lube to me.


Motul has 0w15 in their 300V range.


Except there is no spec for 0w15 oil or 0w5 etc.

Also 20wt was an incredibly wide viscosity range.
they are basically splitting it in half and using the lower half as 16wt.
 
Why not just have 0w-0 or 0w--10? At some point 0 is going to either have to be redefined or start having negative numbers.

At this level what is even the point of having a multi viscosity. There can't be that much difference between 0w and 16 to make much effect on colt starting.
 
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Why not just have 0w-0 or 0w--10? At some point 0 is going to either have to be redefined or start having negative numbers.

At this level what is even the point of having a multi viscosity. There can't be that much difference between 0w and 16 to make much effect on colt starting.


Unless they reinvent the world, I don't see HOW you would end up -ve in the "W" stakes...

"W" is the cold weather pumping and cranking performance, and is at -40C and -35C respectively, regardless of whether the number after it is 8, 12, 16, or 40.
 
Originally Posted By: jhellwig
Why not just have 0w-0 or 0w--10? At some point 0 is going to either have to be redefined or start having negative numbers.

At this level what is even the point of having a multi viscosity. There can't be that much difference between 0w and 16 to make much effect on colt starting.



I suspect aults will make their way into the numbering system.


Say,
You want better cold start up than German Castrol 0w-30 then you would reach for 00w-30.
 
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I suspect aults will make their way into the numbering system.


Say,
You want better cold start up than German Castrol 0w-30 then you would reach for 00w-30.


Where would you be that you needed the CCS at -40C, and the MRV at -45C
 
Lunar Rover.
Under sun light the moon reacher 253 F (123 C).
On the dark side, the moon drops to -243 F (- 153 C)

Fetch me a jug of GTX 000W-1000, I'm taking the rover out for a spin.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Just for giggles, look at this
http://www.docs.citgo.com/msds_pi/C10005A.pdf

Their 10W is SOOO close to being a 10W16.


Interesting, with that mono grade 10w being so close I wonder why the 0w16 has a VI of 160 something. The mono 10w must really fall on it's face when it gets truly cold is all I can imagine. For normal temps it appears it would be the same in performance and likely more shear stable.

The 16's are already a sheared 20 to start with and I think 20 grades are thinner than optimum.
shocked2.gif


JMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top