Pennzoil 0w-16 is Coming!

[PeterPolyol]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: tig1

So what! That's the way it was back then. Your chart is useless(charts like yours can be made to fit anyone's opinion) in respect to the vast difference in actual benefits that the M1 5-20 had over the dino 10-40. At least in my application.


It's only useless in your mind as you want to keep wheeling out your 40 year old anecdote as though it's relevent today. It's NOT.

That's why I call you on it every time that you wheel it out.

It's repetitive blather that has nothing to do with modern engines, modern oils, modern J300. It neither justifes, nor proves anything in the modern world.

The modern equivalent to that oil is Redline 5W20, not a modern ILSAC oil.

 

[mx5miata]

that is sick.. and I thought 0w-20 was thin. next they'll be using sewing machine oil.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: mx5miata
that is sick.. and I thought 0w-20 was thin. next they'll be using sewing machine oil.


Next we’ll be all riding sewing machines because EPA won’t let anyone make cars

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
BITOG Police...me ?....???...you are delusional.

You could try making the occasional relevant fact...fact being the operative word rather than 40 year old anecdote.

But that wouldn't be tig1 would it ?

Correct.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: TheLawnRanger
Guess what's coming out this fall. 0W 0


Also the rubber industry will introduce winter tires for lawn mowers.

The secret dream of mowing grass in January will become possible.

Yay

Wait a minute, I'm confused here. If you live in Canada, and EVERYONE knows that snow covers almost 99.999% of everything in January, how will you cut the grass if you can't see it? I say the winter tires will be redundant for lawn mowers.
Tried to pull a quick one, ay?

 

[jayg]

I actually have studded tires for my riding lawn mower. And a 26' plow for the front of it and i clear my driveway with it.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: jayg
I actually have studded tires for my riding lawn mower. And a 26' plow for the front of it and i clear my driveway with it.

Your riding mower has a 26' plow on it? What kind of motor is on that thing, a blown 572?

 

[Greggy_D]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
A 0w20 becomes a 0w16 really fast with fuel dilution. Now if you START with a 0w16 fresh, you might have a 0w10 after a few miles.


Proof please.

 

[nap]

Originally Posted By: Greggy_D
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
A 0w20 becomes a 0w16 really fast with fuel dilution. Now if you START with a 0w16 fresh, you might have a 0w10 after a few miles.


Proof please.


He doesn’t need to “prove” anything. He used the verb “might”. Also the effects of fuel dilution are well documented, if you have any issues with the existing literature, feel free to publish a scientific paper with your findings.

I have a feeling that you are just

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: nap
Originally Posted By: Greggy_D
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
A 0w20 becomes a 0w16 really fast with fuel dilution. Now if you START with a 0w16 fresh, you might have a 0w10 after a few miles.


Proof please.


He doesn’t need to “prove” anything. He used the verb “might”. Also the effects of fuel dilution are well documented, if you have any issues with the existing literature, feel free to publish a scientific paper with your findings.

I have a feeling that you are just

I haven't seen one UOA where a 20 dropped below the industry's accepted Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt (ASTM D445) when adhering to mfc oci.

Although an anecdote, here's the most comprehensive 0/5w20 series of UOA on BITOG...

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3206681/1

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: wemay

I haven't seen one UOA where a 20 dropped below the industry's accepted Viscosity @ 100°C, cSt (ASTM D445) when adhering to mfc oci.


Note that where nothing EVERY went out of grade on 20 when 20 was stupidly wide (CATERHAM's proof of never dropping out of grade), now they overlap.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub...a_7#Post4741052
Following the trend that HTHS drops at half the percentage rate of KV100, this is a 16.
It's KV100 is clearly in the 16 range.

There's one

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ub...tic#Post4753215
There's another.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4708937/IDEMITSU_0w20_-_3,000mi_-_2014#Post4708937
Three's a crowd

 

[nap]

This may be relevant too, he found 5.4 cSt:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4547414/Re:_Honda_1.5T

wemay, can you describe the extent of your research too?

 

[wemay]

Shannow,

Yes, both show dilution but they are still in-grade. 7s and 8s when the range is 6.0-9.7.

Whether the range is "stupidly wide" really doesn't matter. If we cite the industry standards for one thing, we should do it for all the parameters used. The range is the range regardless of our opinions.

In summary, i will defend against extreme anti thin just as i would against anti thick. These threads are becoming ridiculously redundant.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Shannow,

Yes, both show dilution but they are still in-grade. 7s and 8s when the range is 6.0-9.7.

Whether the range is "stupidly wide" really doesn't matter. If we cite the industry standards for one thing, we should do it for all the parameters used. The range is the range regardless of our opinions.


No, the grade pre under 20s was stupidly wide, and CATERHAM used to use it to state that no 20 has ever gone out of grade.

J300 when it included sub 20s, included overlap in the KVs for the different 20 and below grades...something that it had never done before...a 30 that went from 10 to 9.2 was one of those "30s that ALWAYS becomes a 20, and therefore justifies 20s).

Here's J300, note the overlap....and note that the grade is NOT 6.0 and 9.7, thats a B$tone artifact, not J300.

And remember that HTHS % loss is 50% or thereabouts of the KV loss, AND that CATERHAM proved that TGMO is right at the bottom end of the HTHS spectrum.

So CLEARLY AND LOGICALLY those oils are 16s.

Don't protesteth too much.

Originally Posted By: wemay
The range is the range regardless of our opinions.


Sorry, what was that again ???

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: wemay
Whether the range is "stupidly wide" really doesn't matter.


WAS (why did you make my statement an "IS" ?)...and it WAS as the J300 Committee even stated so when they were looking at it for the sub 20 grades. Posted it back in the day.



5.6-9.3 was an artefact of using time through an orifice under weight and gravity to define the grades as we see them, as opposed to viscosity.

old J300..the "WAS" stupidly wild
20 grade bottom to top 166%
30 grade bottom to top 134%
40 grade bottom to top 130%
50 grade bottom to top 134%

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: wemay
Shannow,

Yes, both show dilution but they are still in-grade. 7s and 8s when the range is 6.0-9.7.

Whether the range is "stupidly wide" really doesn't matter. If we cite the industry standards for one thing, we should do it for all the parameters used. The range is the range regardless of our opinions.


No, the grade pre under 20s was stupidly wide, and CATERHAM used to use it to state that no 20 has ever gone out of grade.

J300 when it included sub 20s, included overlap in the KVs for the different 20 and below grades...something that it had never done before...a 30 that went from 10 to 9.2 was one of those "30s that ALWAYS becomes a 20, and therefore justifies 20s).

Here's J300, note the overlap....and note that the grade is NOT 6.0 and 9.7, thats a B$tone artifact, not J300.

And remember that HTHS % loss is 50% or thereabouts of the KV loss, AND that CATERHAM proved that TGMO is right at the bottom end of the HTHS spectrum.

So CLEARLY AND LOGICALLY those oils are 16s.

Don't protesteth too much.

Originally Posted By: wemay
The range is the range regardless of our opinions.


Sorry, what was that again ???



Lol, ok, got it. Please forgive my early morning posting and misunderstanding. The question you have was based on my first premise concerning the "stupidly wide" remark so it has no significance now that i understand what you were getting at. I thought the range of 6.0 - 9.3 was the official one as well. Did not think J300 was different but i stand corrected.

 

[nap]

This is the second thread today where I see “absence of evidence” confounded with “evidence of absence” in order to shift the burden of proof.

Then, when evidence is eventually provided, it is declared invalid for some frivolous reason.

Nice

 

[Shannow]

It's the dance note the bolded justification.

 

[nap]

Maybe if we’d use a page from EPA’s PR handbook? And award ‘denier’ labels? Like in ‘shear denier’ or ‘fuel dilution denier’ or ‘LSPI denier’ or ‘Stribeck denier’? Maybe they would stop?

 

[wemay]

I don't see anyone (serious person) denying these issues exist... more of putting things into perspective and avoiding internet exaggeration. But that they exist and the industry is making attempts to mitigate, yes absolutely.