0W-16 Oil....... Really ??

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Bill...decades of 0W16...focus please.


This is what I posted...

Originally Posted By: billt460
......It's immaterial HOW or WHY the manufacturers went to these thinner weight oils. They did. And they've been running them for millions of miles, in millions of vehicles, for many years......


Nowhere did I ever say 0W-16 was in use for "decades". In fact if you read my first post, you would see I believed it was quite new, to the point it's the first I've heard of it.

Originally Posted By: billt460
So yesterday I bought a brand new 2018 Toyota Camry. One of the first things I noticed was the sticker under the hood that called out for 0W-16 Engine Oil. I never even heard of that weight.


But as is always the case with you, you are so busy, "thinking" and or playing "engineer", you have trouble with reading the written word as printed. Most likely because you're more concerned over the viscosity of the chocolate chips when they melt. Or else are too busy posting one of your "engineering graphs" that look like they came straight from a Kindergarten finger painting session. And prove just about as much. But regardless, carry on cupcake.


Originally Posted By: Shannow
And while you are focusing, what is the reason d'etre for 0W16 ?

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: john_pifer
Originally Posted By: ARB1977
I don’t see why folks are not comfortable with manufacturers requirements. They’ve done the testing we haven’t.


0W-16 oil was conceived of purely for economy purposes. My bet is that something with a bit more protection would protect better over the long haul.


Maybe, maybe not. It really just boils down to how well oil temperature is managed.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
Originally Posted By: ARB1977
I don’t see why folks are not comfortable with manufacturers requirements. They’ve done the testing we haven’t.


0W-16 oil was conceived of purely for economy purposes. My bet is that something with a bit more protection would protect better over the long haul.


Maybe, maybe not. It really just boils down to how well oil temperature is managed.


We'll know in a few years just how good this oil and engine combo is, after the early adopters start reporting after they've logged some 100K + miles in real world testing. While the mfgs. do some extensive testing, real world use trumps it all the time. This could be the very best there is, but for now no one knows for sure.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
Originally Posted By: ARB1977
I don’t see why folks are not comfortable with manufacturers requirements. They’ve done the testing we haven’t.


0W-16 oil was conceived of purely for economy purposes. My bet is that something with a bit more protection would protect better over the long haul.


Maybe, maybe not. It really just boils down to how well oil temperature is managed.


Oh yes, when you buy a Ford Mustang, or a Toyota 86 with the 20 grades, and a horsepower figure on the manufacturers data sheet, they are quite happy to pull the power out to conserve oil temperature (viscosity/headroom), all within the stock, as delivered platform to prevent their (CAFE driven) lubrication choices from delivering excess wear or worse.

Ford drop the temperature management in certain engines, for 5W50.

I'd be a little peeved if the OEM neutered my engine by design, within the factory delivered envelope, to help the CAFE numbers.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
Originally Posted By: ARB1977
I don’t see why folks are not comfortable with manufacturers requirements. They’ve done the testing we haven’t.


0W-16 oil was conceived of purely for economy purposes. My bet is that something with a bit more protection would protect better over the long haul.


Maybe, maybe not. It really just boils down to how well oil temperature is managed.


Yup, I covered that earlier but it seemed to catch little attention, LOL

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
0W-16 oil was conceived of purely for economy purposes. My bet is that something with a bit more protection would protect better over the long haul.


Maybe, maybe not. It really just boils down to how well oil temperature is managed.


And in these newer vehicles it is managed quite well. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee has both an engine oil temperature gauge, and a transmission oil temperature gauge. The absolute hottest I ever saw the engine oil was 234F on the gauge. And that occurred while driving 75 MPH on I-40 from Laughlin, Nevada to Lake Havasu City, Arizona. Last June when the outside air temperature was 116F on the instrument panel.

The hottest the oil gets around town with an outside air temp in the mid 40's to low 50's in the morning this time of year, is right around 203F. So from one extreme to the other I'm only seeing a temperature difference of 31F. Not nearly enough to start jumping up and down about how running thinner oil is going to be detrimental to an engine.

 

[hatt]

30 degrees is pretty significant. Your 0w-16 may be thicker than my 10w-30 if it's 30 degrees cooler.

 

[SR5]

So a question about 0W-16 oil itself.

If you had two name brand oils from the same manufacturer, one a 0W16 and the other a 0W20, both formulated roughly similar with similar base stock.

Would you expect the 0W16 to contain less VII ? Which would have the lower Noack volatility ?

In a few other threads there was talk how some of the Japanese 0W20 have a heavy polymer VII load, high-ish Noack and a tendency to form deposits. All up they sound a bit nasty to me.

So would a 0W16 be closer to a monograde and therefore fix a lot of the problems found in some Japanese OEM 0W20 oils ?

Note: the American 0W20 oils (like M1) appear a lot better with lower Noack, so I'm not referring to these ones as the problem, more stuff like Eneos.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4693681/

Do the 0W16 get a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to the piston deposit test, like the 0W20 does ?

If the 0W16 is closer to monograde than the 0W20, then the 16 may offer advantages in shear stability, volatility and deposit control.

Just asking, as I don't know myself.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
OK wemay, as a reasonable poster.

What is the reason d'etre for the ongoing reduction in oil viscosity.

Simple one or two word answer will suffice.


Fuel efficiency. No doubt, without question. (sorry for the extra wording. Lol)

 

[wemay]

As i've always said...

Thin doesn't give you significant FE over reasonably thicker.
Thick doesn't give you real world protection over reasonably (mfc recommended) thin.

Both sides are so extreme on here. All the OP is saying is that he's going run the 0w16 because that's what the mfc calls for, and there shouldn't be an issue doing so. That sounds reasonable to me.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: billt460
So tell me, what is going to be your choice in this matter? Are you going to preserve your new car warranty with Mazda, by running the oil they are telling you that you must use? Or are you going to, "protect your engine" with that wonderful, thicker oil the Mexicans are all using? Seeing as we're both new car owners, I'm curious, which in your case, do you think is the smarter play to make?


What am I going to do?

I'm buying mobil 1 0w20 that way I have a receipt for the warranty. I am also buying mobil 1 0w40. I spiked my oci with 1 quart of 0w40. I will run this 5k miles and after a typical drive home from work run, I will pull a uoa to check fuel dilution. Depending on what the viscosity is, I may do 2 quarts of 0w40 to the 0w 20 on the next oci.

When the warranty is up, depending on the fuel dilution, I will run either 0w 30 afe, or 5w 40 hdeo.

 

[ZeeOSix]

"Thin oil, thin oil? ... we don't need no stinkin' thin oil!"

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: wemay

Thin doesn't give you significant FE over reasonably thicker.
Thick doesn't give you real world protection over reasonably (mfc recommended) thin.

Exactly !

I would argue that most reasonable oils work for most normal cars in normal situations.

I also think a big shift has been in the philosophy of how oils are specified by the vehicle manufacturers. Previously it seemed to be protection for the extreme possible usage of the engine, like towing a heavy load through the outback in summer. Now it seems to be for what most people do with their car most of the time, so commuting in a city or cruising the highway.

Both thick and thin work fine in the engine, but now the manufacturers tend to specify oil for what probably will happen to most cars, not what possibly may happen to just one or two cars.

 

[wemay]

You said it better than i did, SR5...

The Santa Fe has, and will continue to run:
5w30
10w30
0w30
5w40
0w40

The Sonata will get the following throughout it's service life:
5w20
0w20
5w30
10w30

Nothing on these lists is 'better' than the rest. Nothing.

 

[SR5]

Yep, in my GM (Opel) Astra I have used: 5W30, 10W30, 0W40, 5W40, 10W40 and 15W40.
As either mineral, semi-synthetic or full synthetic.
From Castrol, Penrite, Shell, Mobil and Valvoline.

Everything worked fine.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Not sure how relevant a letter from eighteen years ago is. Should Honda or Ford have thumbed their noses at this letter, USEPA would have then found itself in a legal wrangle that it would then have had to negotiate its way out of.
A letter expresses an opinion and does not have the force of something that follows the process to become part of the CFR, much less law.


EPA letters that "require" certain actions ... ummm... "require" those certain actions. "must" is also a "must", when it's in a letter from the EPA...it's not opinion. It's enforcable.

Why does the same engine sold in OZ say "oil", instead of xWY viscosity ?

The manufacturers have a requirement under CAFE to do everything reasonably practicable to ensure that owners, and future owners comply with what the vehicle was qualified with...it's termed "anti backsliding".


USEPA can use whatever language it wishes in letters of opinion, whether that be "require", "must" or "under pain of death". The language used doesn't make the opinion any more enforceable under either the CFR or the USC.
I've already shown that makers like Toyota and Subaru have avoided the EPA's wrath while merely ignoring its diktats and EPA has not chosen to challenge them, since EPA has no desire to fight a loosing battle with those who called its bluff.
The EPA can say anything it wishes in a letter. Whether it can enforce that in federal court is another matter entirely. EPA seems unconvinced that it can since it has chosen not to.
You also avoided addressing the role that any incumbent administration plays in determining what EPA can and can't pursue. Since the agency is headed by a presidential appointee who serves at the pleasure of that office, EPA's priorities must vary with changes in administrative supervision.
The agency's agenda and enforcement emphasis have varied widely over the years.
Anyway, CAFE belongs to NHTSA and not to EPA. That the EPA emissions tests are used for the fuel economy ratings derived from them is a matter of convenience and not of law. Nothing would prevent makers from seeking a regulatory change with fuel economy ratings derived from a test protocol entirely divorced from the EPA's emissions cycle testing.

 

[Errtt]

When I 1st heard of 0w-20 I was like "What!"
I think I had the same reaction 1st hearing of 0w-16.
I'll probably do the same when its down to 0w-4 or something

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: billt460
https://www.ebay.com/i/263247431319?chn=ps&dispItem=1

It seems expensive

Expensive? Do you have any idea how much does it cost to ship six quarts of oil? It's not to mention that eBay also charges 10% of the sale price to the seller.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: Errtt
When I 1st heard of 0w-20 I was like "What!"
I think I had the same reaction 1st hearing of 0w-16. ...
Much ado and panic in this and many similar threads about nothing, or barely more than nothing. 0W-16 is not as radically thinner than (for example) 10W-30 as people imagine (except at very low temperatures at which even 0W-X is far thicker than any engine requires). Look at the actual HTHS minimums before assuming the viscosity is somehow proportional to the grade designation. "-16" is just a category name (based on physical measurement), not a physical measurement in itself. Same for "0W."

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: Errtt
When I 1st heard of 0w-20 I was like "What!"
I think I had the same reaction 1st hearing of 0w-16. ...

Much ado and panic in this and many similar threads about nothing, or barely more than nothing. 0W-16 is not as radically thinner than (for example) 10W-30 as people imagine. Look at the actual HTHS minimums before assuming the viscosity is somehow proportional to the grade designation. "-16" is just a category name (based on physical measurement), not a physical measurement in itself. Same for "0W."

Yup, people panicked when 10W-30 multigrade oil was introduced. They then panicked when 5W-30 was introduced. They then panicked when 5W-20 was introduced. They then panicked when 0W-20 was introduced. You get the idea.

If it's what's recommended in the owner's manual, that's what you should use. I run 0W-20 in my 1985 Toyota Corolla engine that recommends 10W-30 (not even 5W-30) and it runs perfectly with nearly zero oil consumption and the UOAs turn out great. So, I'm sure a 2018 Toyota Camry engine will be just fine with 0W-16.