Best NOACK for 0w20 that we know of...
Amsoil SSO 0w20 is 8.5 as listed on page 4 here: https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2880.pdf
Amsoil SSO 0w20 is 8.5 as listed on page 4 here: https://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2880.pdf
Best NOACK for 0w20
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
Ravenol ECS 0w20 is 7.4 but another Ravenol product not yet stateside is lower I think. There is a post in the VOA section IIRC.
NOACK for Red Line 0W-20 is 9
https://www.redlineoil.com/Content/files/tech/0W20_MO_PROD_INFO.pdf
https://www.redlineoil.com/Content/files/tech/0W20_MO_PROD_INFO.pdf
Originally Posted By: two4spooky
Ravenol ECS 0w20 is 7.4 but another Ravenol product not yet stateside is lower I think. There is a post in the VOA section IIRC.
You beat me to it. Ravenol consistently impresses with NOACK figures... at a hefty price, though.
Ravenol ECS 0w20 is 7.4 but another Ravenol product not yet stateside is lower I think. There is a post in the VOA section IIRC.
You beat me to it. Ravenol consistently impresses with NOACK figures... at a hefty price, though.
Price would definitely factor into it somewhat. I mean Amsoil for me is about the same price as off the shelf synthetic brands here and offers decent NOACK but I wouldn't pay double for Ravenol if it were a price gap that large. That is if I could even get that here... Not sure I can easily.
Last edited:
Matters to me.
There seems to be conflicting evidence whether Noack matters or not as long as it is within the limits set for the grade. A lot like pour point or flash point, what on the surface seems to be an important property may not be so important in reality. One boutique oil company mentioned in this thread has a love affair with Noack values but the rest of the industry doesn't seem to share quite the same love.
And it should be "Noack", not NOACK. It is someone's name.
And it should be "Noack", not NOACK. It is someone's name.
In a healthy engine that doesn't burn oil, as long as it is within the set limits of the grade I don't sweat the number. In an oil burner I'd be a bit more concerned.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
In a healthy engine that doesn't burn oil, as long as it is within the set limits of the grade I don't sweat the number. In an oil burner I'd be a bit more concerned.
Why? One we realize the crankcase is full of oil mist and blow by gasses etc. the NOACK is relativley meaning less especially in BITOG land where we read an article on NOACK and LSPI. We seem to have more of a problem with oil thinning than thickening actually .
In a healthy engine that doesn't burn oil, as long as it is within the set limits of the grade I don't sweat the number. In an oil burner I'd be a bit more concerned.
Why? One we realize the crankcase is full of oil mist and blow by gasses etc. the NOACK is relativley meaning less especially in BITOG land where we read an article on NOACK and LSPI. We seem to have more of a problem with oil thinning than thickening actually .
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
In a healthy engine that doesn't burn oil, as long as it is within the set limits of the grade I don't sweat the number. In an oil burner I'd be a bit more concerned.
Why? One we realize the crankcase is full of oil mist and blow by gasses etc. the NOACK is relativley meaning less especially in BITOG land where we read an article on NOACK and LSPI. We seem to have more of a problem with oil thinning than thickening actually .
Oil vapor =/= oil mist. One is oil in a liquid state, the other is oil in a gaseous state. Noack is a very good indicator of how prone an oil is to leaving piston deposits. While I do believe it’s impact, overall, is a bit exaggerated, it is nevertheless a good metric to look at.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
In a healthy engine that doesn't burn oil, as long as it is within the set limits of the grade I don't sweat the number. In an oil burner I'd be a bit more concerned.
Why? One we realize the crankcase is full of oil mist and blow by gasses etc. the NOACK is relativley meaning less especially in BITOG land where we read an article on NOACK and LSPI. We seem to have more of a problem with oil thinning than thickening actually .
Oil vapor =/= oil mist. One is oil in a liquid state, the other is oil in a gaseous state. Noack is a very good indicator of how prone an oil is to leaving piston deposits. While I do believe it’s impact, overall, is a bit exaggerated, it is nevertheless a good metric to look at.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: kschachn
There seems to be conflicting evidence whether Noack matters or not as long as it is within the limits set for the grade. A lot like pour point or flash point, what on the surface seems to be an important property may not be so important in reality. One boutique oil company mentioned in this thread has a love affair with Noack values but the rest of the industry doesn't seem to share quite the same love.
And it should be "Noack", not NOACK. It is someone's name.
I tend to agree. How much better is 7% than 13%? No one really knows where the threshold is. Driving style, fuel quality etc, all contribute to an engine's wellbeing. There are quite a few forums with angry members who "only used the best, low Noack Synthetic oils since day one" who now need a walnut blast.
There seems to be conflicting evidence whether Noack matters or not as long as it is within the limits set for the grade. A lot like pour point or flash point, what on the surface seems to be an important property may not be so important in reality. One boutique oil company mentioned in this thread has a love affair with Noack values but the rest of the industry doesn't seem to share quite the same love.
And it should be "Noack", not NOACK. It is someone's name.
I tend to agree. How much better is 7% than 13%? No one really knows where the threshold is. Driving style, fuel quality etc, all contribute to an engine's wellbeing. There are quite a few forums with angry members who "only used the best, low Noack Synthetic oils since day one" who now need a walnut blast.
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
A few knowledgeable members here have stated over the years that TBN Retention is more important than NOACK. Nice to note in many UOAs that Blackstone still signals 'Safe To Continue' for TBNs as low as 2.
Would I do an OCI that reads 2-TBN using 0W20?....... Yep!
Would I do an OCI that reads 2-TBN using 0W20?....... Yep!
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Oil vapor =/= oil mist. One is oil in a liquid state, the other is oil in a gaseous state. Noack is a very good indicator of how prone an oil is to leaving piston deposits. While I do believe it’s impact, overall, is a bit exaggerated, it is nevertheless a good metric to look at.
I have no measurable proof, but I'd think logic says that a lower Noack oils give off less vapors which would help reduce the level of vapors being sucked into the intake manifold through the PCV system. Less oil vapors sucked into the intake is a good thing IMO.
Oil vapor =/= oil mist. One is oil in a liquid state, the other is oil in a gaseous state. Noack is a very good indicator of how prone an oil is to leaving piston deposits. While I do believe it’s impact, overall, is a bit exaggerated, it is nevertheless a good metric to look at.
I have no measurable proof, but I'd think logic says that a lower Noack oils give off less vapors which would help reduce the level of vapors being sucked into the intake manifold through the PCV system. Less oil vapors sucked into the intake is a good thing IMO.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: kschachn
There seems to be conflicting evidence whether Noack matters or not as long as it is within the limits set for the grade. A lot like pour point or flash point, what on the surface seems to be an important property may not be so important in reality. One boutique oil company mentioned in this thread has a love affair with Noack values but the rest of the industry doesn't seem to share quite the same love.
And it should be "Noack", not NOACK. It is someone's name.
I tend to agree. How much better is 7% than 13%? No one really knows where the threshold is. Driving style, fuel quality etc, all contribute to an engine's wellbeing. There are quite a few forums with angry members who "only used the best, low Noack Synthetic oils since day one" who now need a walnut blast.
Agreed. That said, how important is all the other stats that the obsessed love
to obsess over? That is the question. As the other Zee suggested I'd rather buy a 8
Noack oil than a 15 one.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
There seems to be conflicting evidence whether Noack matters or not as long as it is within the limits set for the grade. A lot like pour point or flash point, what on the surface seems to be an important property may not be so important in reality. One boutique oil company mentioned in this thread has a love affair with Noack values but the rest of the industry doesn't seem to share quite the same love.
And it should be "Noack", not NOACK. It is someone's name.
I tend to agree. How much better is 7% than 13%? No one really knows where the threshold is. Driving style, fuel quality etc, all contribute to an engine's wellbeing. There are quite a few forums with angry members who "only used the best, low Noack Synthetic oils since day one" who now need a walnut blast.
Agreed. That said, how important is all the other stats that the obsessed love
to obsess over? That is the question. As the other Zee suggested I'd rather buy a 8
Noack oil than a 15 one.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
No doubt, lower is better. By how much is anyone's guess.
I think NOACK is important only for long drain, and what kind of vapor they produce may impact LSPI.
In the past, when I tried PU 5w30 with low NOACK, interestingly it produce more ping than Mobil 1 EP.
So in my observation, NOACK is important but not too critical, because seems the ingrefient of the vapor cause bigger effect on LSPI.
In the past, when I tried PU 5w30 with low NOACK, interestingly it produce more ping than Mobil 1 EP.
So in my observation, NOACK is important but not too critical, because seems the ingrefient of the vapor cause bigger effect on LSPI.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Oil vapor =/= oil mist. One is oil in a liquid state, the other is oil in a gaseous state. Noack is a very good indicator of how prone an oil is to leaving piston deposits. While I do believe it’s impact, overall, is a bit exaggerated, it is nevertheless a good metric to look at.
I have no measurable proof, but I'd think logic says that a lower Noack oils give off less vapors which would help reduce the level of vapors being sucked into the intake manifold through the PCV system. Less oil vapors sucked into the intake is a good thing IMO.
Exactly.
Originally Posted By: 1JZ_E46
Oil vapor =/= oil mist. One is oil in a liquid state, the other is oil in a gaseous state. Noack is a very good indicator of how prone an oil is to leaving piston deposits. While I do believe it’s impact, overall, is a bit exaggerated, it is nevertheless a good metric to look at.
I have no measurable proof, but I'd think logic says that a lower Noack oils give off less vapors which would help reduce the level of vapors being sucked into the intake manifold through the PCV system. Less oil vapors sucked into the intake is a good thing IMO.
Exactly.
Originally Posted By: wemay
No doubt, lower is better. By how much is anyone's guess.
That's basically my point. At what point do we stop? Should we only buy an oil with the best possible Noack figures, and ignore everything else? Or is the difference between 7 and 10 moot, or 8 and 12 moot, etc. in a daily driver? Pennzoil adversities less deposits in the rings than their competition [or something along those lines], yet their Noack numbers are considered lousy by some.
No doubt, lower is better. By how much is anyone's guess.
That's basically my point. At what point do we stop? Should we only buy an oil with the best possible Noack figures, and ignore everything else? Or is the difference between 7 and 10 moot, or 8 and 12 moot, etc. in a daily driver? Pennzoil adversities less deposits in the rings than their competition [or something along those lines], yet their Noack numbers are considered lousy by some.
I agree there is more to an oil and the engine that is using it along with other factors... I'm, just interested in seeing the lowest NOACK 0w20 and then will take a look at the oils other characteristics along with it.
I didn't mean for this to become a thread about that the NOACK is the be-all end-all, just wanted to start there and then consider whatever other properties are in the oil along with.
So what is the lowest NOACK out there for oils that are either off the shelf or that are similar to Amsoil distribution model?
I didn't mean for this to become a thread about that the NOACK is the be-all end-all, just wanted to start there and then consider whatever other properties are in the oil along with.
So what is the lowest NOACK out there for oils that are either off the shelf or that are similar to Amsoil distribution model?
- Status
Similar threads
